Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 06:40:03 -0400 From: Jerry <jerry@seibercom.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Rebuild all ports for perl minor version update? Message-ID: <20130614064003.55745320@scorpio> In-Reply-To: <20130614101017.GI44980@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> References: <88415.98533.bm@smtp104.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <51BAD1D7.5020500@marino.st> <20130614054941.66ea1913@scorpio> <20130614101017.GI44980@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Sig_/ZDDju99frp0TOeVI46D9yoL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:10:17 +0200 Baptiste Daroussin articulated: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 05:49:41AM -0400, Jerry wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:18:31 +0200 > > John Marino articulated: > >=20 > > > According to OpenBSD's Marc Espie on a pkgsrc list, a lot of > > > established scripts will break on perl 5.18. Apparently it is not > > > highly backwards compatible. > > >=20 > > > A large % of the perl packages would cease to build if they just > > > moved to 5.18. A minor upgrade is definitely better. > >=20 > > So what does that mean for the future of Perl-5.18 & FreeBSD? I > > haven't seen any unusual chatter in other forums for other OSs > > regarding a problem with Perl-5.18. Hell, even SlashDot has not had > > any negative chatter that I am aware of and they are always the > > first to jump on any software problem, real or imaginary. Is this a > > FreeBSD "specific" problem and if so, what is being done to > > eradicate it? >=20 > This is not a FreeBSD "specific" problem given that Marc Espie is > from OpenBSD and so was speaking of problems found on OpenBSD. using > google I found the said mail quite quickly: > http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-pkg/2013/06/03/msg011435.html >=20 > Where Marc gives example of changes in perl 5.18 that can lead to > breakage. Just so I am understanding this correctly, the problem is not with Perl-5.18, but rather applications that were written for earlier versions that may not have in fact been written in tight compliance with the specifications of the earlier versions and those problems seem to reside on *BSD platforms more readily than other OSs. Is that a fair statement? In my opinion, rather than just issuing a blanket embargo of the newer version, I would think that issuing a warning of its potential problems, (and I do stress the use of POTENTIAL as opposed to GUARANTEED ramifications) to be a more suitable solution to the situation. Users would be free to make their own decisions. Unless the intent is to lock *.BSD into versions < 5.18 ad infinitum, at some point the action must be taken anyway. --=20 Jerry =E2=99=94 Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __________________________________________________________________ --Sig_/ZDDju99frp0TOeVI46D9yoL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuvMOAAoJEF2rWD2do7dN2Z4H/jUgoyAT9smf9KBlBFX9GJIv 13XCKXnEIN+CzDZ44tWpaf8sYgH1w2gol9+8cU2+rheFAW6THdGwNQZbMF0jh4LK UHh4XgMDDTFxTw3V9m69pLGcMplt4PKWy/vNYRMxNzxY9AUbiFKGAN+APXljLMZ9 Uk5+11ls0y1xdH84/iqJJ0MxVlWH1RJkAKVbl5dabREDqEHPH7p8yar1HFE8gO8M Yk6XKWftZbzNo46jcHnpOeUoGQ631Wf5JzTdFy+cvoVN46lTc5egjteANKzpvqtF CJITpinwemII2cmWf18cnaT6nj+NqCF0WhqhU1bEZkYRpQC/vdtedHpN0AmZzDQ= =MPYy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/ZDDju99frp0TOeVI46D9yoL--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130614064003.55745320>