On Aug 12, 2014, at 10:28 AM, Daniel J. Luke <dl...@geeklair.net> wrote: > > 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.
Mojca has said she has time for what she has proposed, and not for what you have proposed. > 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 My hope is that backporting an already-working patch to earlier perls would be easy. And revbumping all the modules is already planned, so that's no additional effort. >> 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. We are incrementally working toward the goal of updating perl module ports to newer versions, and adding newer perl versions to them thereby either verifying that they work with newer perls or in some cases uncovering problems that then get reported to the module's developers and get fixed. _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
