On 2009-Jan-14 17:36:21 +0100, Kirill Ponomarew <kr...@voodoo.bawue.com> wrote: >On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:43:28AM -0500, Philip M. Gollucci wrote: >> > Could you elaborate on this topic and explain the reason for separate port? >> Not everyone is going to update immediately. Also loads of the p5- ports >> will >> have issues or be incompatible. > >You could run pointyhat for the issues with incompatibility.
Not necessarily. Incompatibilities are more likely to show up at runtime than compile time. Unless the p5- port implements self tests and/or correct version tests, it's likely that incompatibilites will be missed. There's also the issue of user's perl code - which we can't test. (Given the incomatibilities between perl 5.6 and 5.8, this may even be justification for leaving a perl5.6 port in the tree until bitrot sets in, rather than yanking it once perl 5.10 becomes reasonably stable). >> ITs going to be dual lifed like perl 5.6 I think this is an excellent idea. Note that we have multiple jdk's and gcc's in ports. There's no reason why we can't also have several perl's. >> lang/perl5 >> lang/perl5.8 >> lang/perl5.10 > >Jeez... I'm less keen on having a perl5 port that is (effectively) obsolete. Any lang/perl or lang/perl5 port should be the latest stable release. (Java fell into that hole and a significant number of people were caught trying to install java 1.1 when they actually wanted java 1.4 or java 1.5). -- Peter Jeremy Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour.
pgpGCPo6GfaR2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
