Sorry, I wrote a reply to this message on Tuesday, but as I had to run to catch a train, I forgot to press "send". Just got back this afternoon...
K. Piche wrote: > On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 14:53 +0200, Firmicus wrote: > >> I've sent the following message to Kevin a week ago, but since he has >> not responded, I thought it was best to raise the issue on this list. >> >> <snip> > Hi Firmicus. > > You sent it Friday and I don't check my mail every day, sorry. > No problem. I have a GD flu this week so my perception of time is blurried ;) > It is a big patch and there are no descriptions but I they must be > fixing something or they wouldn't bother. :) At a minimum I think we > should definitely fix the Unicode problem (13901) and the toke.c > problem. I have no objection to the whole patch though. If you're > confident the patched perl is OK then I say we go for it. > I have the same feeling. I'd be happy with a minimal patch, but I don't have objections against the whole thing, as long as it's well documented. > The libperl.a/so problem (10971) needs to be fixed - I dropped the ball > on that one. > Ok. This can be deferred. > As for 13808, I don't recall what our stance is on FHS compliance. > Ultimately the PATH's get added by a script so where the binaries live > isn't a real issue. We would need to rebuild the packages that have > scripts or include the old perlbin PATH's during a migration period. > Same. > Would you like me to build it or are you OK? > I'll do it tonight. F
