On Aug 12, 2014, at 11:25 AM, Ryan Schmidt <ryandes...@macports.org> wrote:
>
>> that's pretty much why we're in the situation we are now - we just continue
>> with the current setup because it's 'easier'. Someone puts a bunch of effort
>> into making things work with a newer (but never the current) perl, and then
>> dev stops and we do the same dance later (but with even more perls).
>
> Would you prefer we do nothing, until someone has the time to do the massive
> job you propose?
I would prefer we spend time/effort working towards an end state that is an
improvement.
I also reject your hypothesis that it's more effort to move to one perl than it
is to do these changes to perls 5.8, 5.10, 5.12, 5.14, 5.16, 5.18, and 5.20
> I think it's better to continue making incremental improvements, until that
> day comes.
sure, as long as they're incrementally working towards a goal instead of
working towards just adding yet more perl5.xx ports.
--
Daniel J. Luke
+========================================================+
| *---------------- dl...@geeklair.net ----------------* |
| *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* |
+========================================================+
| Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily |
| reflect the opinions of my employer. |
+========================================================+
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
