Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:11:53 +0100 From: Anton Berezin <tobez@tobez.org> To: Igor Roshchin <str@komkon.org> Cc: perl@freebsd.org Subject: Re: perl version hardcoded in ports Message-ID: <20060216191153.GA92183@heechee.tobez.org> In-Reply-To: <200602161633.k1GGXq6c027765@trantor.komkon.org> References: <200602161633.k1GGXq6c027765@trantor.komkon.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 11:33:52AM -0500, Igor Roshchin wrote:
> I just was upgrading the perl port on a 5.4-R box,
> and found that many ports that require perl (previously installed
> via portupgrade) have it hardcoded with the version number, e.g.
>
> monthly:#!/usr/local/bin/perl5.8.6
> oldlog2new:#!/usr/local/bin/perl5.8.6
> sa-learn:#!/usr/local/bin/perl5.8.6 -T -w
> sa-update:#!/usr/local/bin/perl5.8.6 -T -w
> spamassassin:#!/usr/local/bin/perl5.8.6 -T -w
> spamd:#!/usr/local/bin/perl5.8.6 -T -w
> splitlog:#!/usr/local/bin/perl5.8.6
> wwwerrs:#!/usr/local/bin/perl5.8.6
> wwwstat:#!/usr/local/bin/perl5.8.6
>
> In this case most of the files are from wwwstat and spamassassin.
Have you tried to run perl-after-upgrade script, as per UPDATING dating
from the last time lang/perl5.8 was updated?
> While it might be warranted in some instances,
> I don't believe it is really required for many (if not most)
> of these packages. I think they should use /usr/local/bin/perl
> instead.
> I suspect, that it is the fault of the mechanism built in
> the portupgrade (or ports building system)
Yes, I think using ${PERL} rather than ${PERL5} is more correct for
those substitutions/patches.
Nevertheless, perl-after-upgrade's job is to fix those cases.
Cheers,
\Anton.
--
An undefined problem has an infinite number of solutions.
-- Robert A. Humphrey
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060216191153.GA92183>