On July 27, 2017 9:11:57 PM GMT+03:00, Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> wrote: >On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:03:50AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> Hi Efraim, >> >> Efraim Flashner <efr...@flashner.co.il> skribis: >> >> > There's a lot of perl related build failures. Maybe it would be >better >> > to revert the perl update and work on updating perl and all the >perl >> > modules separately. It seems to me that there are a large number of >perl >> > packages that haven't been updated in quite some time. >> >> Reverting is not an option at this point IMO. There are several >Date::* >> modules required by Biber that FTBFS and need an update, indeed, but >I >> think we should rather find a way to fix them (I spent a bit of time >on >> it but then moved on to something else.) >> >> Thoughts? > >I'll work on building Biber now. > >Are there any other failing Perl modules that we *need* to fix? I think >we can't achieve zero regressions from an update like this, especially >since so many of these modules seem to lack an active upstream. So, if >Guix users care about them, they should speak up now :)
Not as a reason to put it off, but Debian is beginning their Perl transition and I've noticed some of the modules I've looked at have Debian developers as the upstream. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.