From owner-freebsd-current Thu Apr 6 5:43:46 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from email.spcgroup.nl (mail.spc.nl [193.79.3.34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 687F837BD6A for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 05:43:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from e.mons@spcgroup.nl) Received: from spcgroup.nl (firewall.spcgroup.nl [193.79.3.33]) by email.spcgroup.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA01497; Thu, 6 Apr 2000 14:43:03 +0200 Message-ID: <38EC86C5.6010206@spcgroup.nl> Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 14:44:53 +0200 From: Edwin Mons User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; N; WinNT4.0; en-US; m14) Netscape6/6.0b1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: The Hermit Hacker Cc: Doug Barton , Christopher Masto , Nick Hibma , Chuck Robey , "Thomas T. Veldhouse" , FreeBSD-Current Subject: Re: Perl 5.6.0? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG The Hermit Hacker wrote: > = > On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Doug Barton wrote: > = > > Christopher Masto wrote: > > > = > > > On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:52:13AM +0100, Nick Hibma wrote: > > > > Are there actually any good reasons why we _should_ upgrade in th= e first > > > > place? > > > = > > > Of course. We now have an obsolete version of Perl. That should b= e > > > reason enough to upgrade. > > = > > You haven't given a sufficiently compelling definition of "obsolete"= > > yet. I think that what people are really asking is, "What does this n= ew > > perl get us that we don't already have?" Once we've answered that, th= en > > we can balance the benefits against the costs (which are pretty high,= > > considering the complexity of integrating perl into the berkeley make= > > environment) and then we can try and apply those arguments in the sea= rch > > for someone who is willing and able to do the work. = > = > My experiences with perl tend to be that as soon as a new release comes= > out, all the module maintainers tend to adopt it as standard and start = to > deprecate the older versions. I'm not saying that this is an overnight= > sort of thing, but it does pose a problem ... > = > My stupid question, though, is why is this such a big issue? Would it = be > too hard to extend our /usr/src build process so that it is smart enoug= h > to do an install out of ports, and just build the ports version of 5.6.= 0, > vs trying to integrate it into our build tree? Create a symlink to > /usr/ports/devel/perl560 so that when it cd's to the perl directory and= > does a 'make', it builds that? Whoah!=A0 That would mean that I'd have to install the ports tree on ever= y = machine I intend to build world on..=A0 That's just not acceptable to me.= =A0 = The source tree should remain independant to external sources. Regards, Edwin Mons To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message