From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 16 00:29:53 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E699F37B401 for ; Fri, 16 May 2003 00:29:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51.attbi.com [204.127.198.38]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48C3E43F3F for ; Fri, 16 May 2003 00:29:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from DougB@freebsd.org) Received: from master.dougb.net (12-234-22-23.client.attbi.com[12.234.22.23]) by attbi.com (rwcrmhc51) with SMTP id <2003051607295205100l8j8se>; Fri, 16 May 2003 07:29:52 +0000 Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 00:29:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030516001541.U656@znfgre.qbhto.arg> References: Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ X-message-flag: Outlook -- Not just for spreading viruses anymore! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Perl version in -STABLE X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 07:29:54 -0000 On Thu, 15 May 2003, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > [bcc: to re@] > > Considering the amount of changes between 4.x and 5.x, and the > performance issues of the latter, I think I can safely predict that > RELENG_4 will be around for a long time after the RELENG_5 branch. Agreed. > While I understand that some will resist making RELENG_4 any more > useful than it currently is (to encourage users to move to 5.x), I > think there is one issue that should be addressed: the in-tree version > of Perl. -STABLE currently has 5.005_03, which is four years old and > noticeably incompatible with newer versions in at least some respects; > the most common stumbling block in my experience being the new, safer > syntax for open(), which 5.005_03 does not support. Let's not lose track of the fact that for most things, 5.005_03 works perfectly fine. The fact that the "latest and greatest" of everything doesn't always work with it is simply a sign of the growing influence of the bleeding edge linux folks on open source development. I spend a non-trivial amount of time on my perl-affected ports making sure that they still work with 5.005_03, and generally the changes necessary are quite small. > "Install Perl from ports" is not a good answer unless we decide here > and now to remove Perl completely from -STABLE. Otherwise, we are > practically guaranteed that a certain percentage of RELENG_4 users > (more and more as time goes on and 5.005_03 becomes even more > antiquated) will consistently forget to build world with NOPERL. Personally, I don't think our users are that stupid, especially the ones that really depend on perl. Also, the "damage" done by an installworld that includes perl is quite easily undone. I also think that this change would break faith with those users of RELENG_4 that were promised that the perl in that branch would never be upgraded. We don't even HAVE a 5.005_03 port, so those who depend on it would be left in the dust. I vigorously oppose this plan. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection