On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 08:19:27AM -0700, David Evans wrote: > As Daniel has said, no point in changing things that are going to go away so > we need to get a consensus on where we want to go with this. My input here > would be this: > > * make the necessary changes to perl5.18 to work as perl5.20 does > * leave perl5.16 and lower alone for now > * update ports to support p5.18 & 5.20 unless there is strong sentiment > to go to 5.20 ASAP. > not much difference in adding one or two new branches > * then decided which branches to remove, go to single perl (which has > other consequences), etc.
This makes sense to me. I don't know enough about perl to comment usefully on the subrelease path issue, so I'll leave that to people who actually know what they're talking about. I think it is worth adding support for p5.18 and 5.20 to the current p5 ports since that doesn't seem terribly onerous -- especially if Mojca has already written a patch :). And it'll give us a chance to see if any of the existing perl modules have trouble building for 5.18/5.20. Longer-term, we need to decide whether to go to a single perl. Personally, I'm in favor of this. But it's clearly going to involve a lot of work (even if it'll save us more in the long run) so we shouldn't let that stop us from doing this now. Dan -- Dan R. K. Ports UW CSE http://drkp.net/ _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
