On 05/05/2010 02:33 PM, Sidney Markowitz wrote:
> I haven't followed the perl 5.12 patches, but it makes sense to me
> that 5.12 compatibility would be a good thing to fold in. Other
> devs, please speak up +1 or -1 on that.

-1

5.12 compatibility is fine.  A 5.12 /dependency/ is bad, though
perhaps acceptable for a 3.4.0 dependency assuming 5.12 has found its
way into the enterprise OS's with enough buffer before SA 3.4's release.

Perl 5.12 is only one month old and has only been packaged by ONE
distribution to date.

hasn't yet hit even Debian Unstable (which is still on 5.10.1).  Both
Debian Stable (Lenny is stuck at 5.10) and Red Hat Enterprise (RHEL5
is stuck at 5.8) work fine in 3.3.1 but would have enormous hoops to
jump through to upgrade to 5.12.  The RHEL6 beta features perl 5.10.1,
which probably means that the final release, expected at the end of
the year(?), will ship 5.10.x.  Solaris 10 has 5.8.4, as does
OpenSolaris 2009.06 (which has a five year commercial support
commitment from Oracle, who dubs it a kind of preview for Solaris 11).

Here's where things stand.  Asterisked items are not yet released.
Data from www.distrowatch.com

Debian 5.0 (Lenny)      5.10.0
*Debian 6.0 (Squeeze)   5.10.1
*Debian Unstable (Sid)  5.10.1
Ubuntu 10.04 LTS        5.10.1
*Ubuntu 10.10 snap      5.10.1

Novell/SUSE Ent 11      5.10.0
openSUSE 11.2           5.10.0
*openSUSE factory       5.12.0

Red Hat Ent 5.5         5.8.8   (and thus CentOS et al)
*Red Hat Ent 6 Beta     5.10.1
Fedora 13               5.10.1
*Fedora Rawhide         5.10.1

Mandriva 2010           5.10.1
*Mandriva cooker        5.10.1

Gentoo 10.1             5.8.8
Gentoo stable           5.8.8
*Gentoo unstable        5.10.1

Sun Solaris 10          5.8.4
OpenSolaris 2009.06     5.8.4  (5y support, ~preview of Solaris 11)

OpenBSD 4.7             5.10.1

FreeBSD 8 Stable        5.8.9
*FreeBSD 8 Release      5.10.1
*FreeBSD 9 Current      5.8.9  (huh?)

NetBSD 5.0              5.10.0
*NetBSD pkgsrc          5.10.1

DragonFly BSD 2.4       5.10.0

Reply via email to