From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 24 02:21:54 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D031516A4CE for ; Sat, 24 Jan 2004 02:21:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk [81.2.69.218]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22F2243D3F for ; Sat, 24 Jan 2004 02:21:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) Received: from happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk (localhost [IPv6:::1]) i0OALise067475 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 24 Jan 2004 10:21:44 GMT (envelope-from matthew@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk) Received: (from matthew@localhost)id i0OALhWx067474; Sat, 24 Jan 2004 10:21:43 GMT (envelope-from matthew) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 10:21:43 +0000 From: Matthew Seaman To: "Thomas T. Veldhouse" Message-ID: <20040124102143.GB66769@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk> Mail-Followup-To: Matthew Seaman , "Thomas T. Veldhouse" , Charles Swiger , Michael Whitley , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <000c01c3e1db$d1bd2ff0$0f8a23a6@open.wcomnet.com> <08497192-4DD7-11D8-A782-003065ABFD92@mac.com> <001101c3e217$36bff1e0$0101a8c0@cascade> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="/NkBOFFp2J2Af1nK" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <001101c3e217$36bff1e0$0101a8c0@cascade> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.62 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.62 (2004-01-11) on happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk cc: Michael Whitley cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: freebsd 4.8 and the spamassassin 2.6x port X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 10:21:54 -0000 --/NkBOFFp2J2Af1nK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 07:13:02PM -0600, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote: > Why perl 5.8? My 5.2 machine is running postfix, perl 5.6.1 and amavisd-= new > without any trouble at all. perl-5.8.2 is the official stable and recommended version of perl by the perl developers. Actually, I tell a lie -- it's perl-5.8.3 now, but that hasn't hit the ports tree yet. I'm not sure why the ports are arranged such that lang/perl5 gives you an older version of perl, and lang/perl5.8 gives you the latest -- rather than having lang/perl5.6 and lang/perl5. Probably historical reasons, although I think there is still an issue in perl-5.8.x to do with using the system malloc vs. the malloc built into perl which can sometimes (but not always) lead to performance troubles or memory leaks (depending which one you choose), which is why perl-5.6.1 is preferred by some. Cheers, Matthew --=20 Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks Savill Way PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK --/NkBOFFp2J2Af1nK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAEkc3dtESqEQa7a0RAr0tAJwJRxu9PDHI2ueFyBRbXCsolXmMKACghf4S cnIk74EblRtWe51Uh4Gu1rM= =pW82 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --/NkBOFFp2J2Af1nK--