The history here is that a perl584 package was introduced in 10.3 unstable, but it never moved to stable due to the fact that 10.4 used perl586.
On the other hand, we did create a perl581 package in 10.4, for ease of upgrade: people who had a bunch of -pm581's installed, which had used the system perl in 10.3, could now rely on the perl581 package. We're anticipating a similar transition for 10.5, which we expect will use perl588. There is now a perl588 package in 10.4 (both stable and unstable), and you can create -pm588 packages now to prepare for the eventual transition. (Another part of the history is that, when 10.4 on intel was introduced, we just did a mass add of "(%type_pkg[perl] = 581) powerpc, (%type_pkg[perl] = 584) powerpc" to the Architecture line, because we were unable to get perl581 or perl584 to build on intel. Rather than read through each package to find out which variants it had, we just added the same phrase to all of them.) Testing variants is not hard: when you ask fink to build the variant, the proper version of perl will be loaded for you. Anyway, my advice is this: if you are not going to be maintaining the 10.3 version of the package (a very reasonable thing, at this point), then you should focus on the -pm586 and -pm588 variants. On the other hand, completely removing old variants is unfriendly, because other things may depend on them. So you could create a legacy package for -pm581 (the .info file would be called finance-quote- pm581.info), and set the maintainer in that file to None. -- Dave On Jan 17, 2007, at 9:22 PM, David Reiser wrote: > I picked up maintainership of finance-quote so that gnucash could > work with a recent version. There's a new upstream f-q out, so now > I'm trying to understand a bit more about perlmod info files. > > The existing f-q info file (mostly copied from the f-q 1.08 version > before my awareness of fink) says: > > Architecture: (%type_pkg[perl] = 581) powerpc, (%type_pkg[perl] = > 584) powerpc > > but also: > > Type: perl (5.8.1 5.8.6) > > So why specify an architecture for 584 and then not allow it to list > finance-quote-pm584? I believe msachs' world builds complained about > the absence of the 584 variant. Was 5.8.4 a notorious perl version? > Dare I just include it in the Type: field? How should I go about > testing either a 584 or a 588 variant if I add them to the Type: > field? > > BTW, crypt-ssleay does this same thing, and it has a different > maintainership history. > > Also, should I be thinking about deleting the 581 variant? I don't > have a 10.3 machine around to test on. Would anyone on 10.4 be using > that old a perl version? > > Dave > -- > David Reiser > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to > share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php? > page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Fink-devel mailing list > Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel