I second perl 5.22. And that we should only support the latest perl. —Mark _______________________ Mark E. Anderson <[email protected]>
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Daniel J. Luke <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 14, 2015, at 12:22 PM, David Evans <[email protected]> wrote: > > My point in being cautious has to do with fact that perl5.22 has just > recently been released as the latest stable version. > > this is criteria we don’t have in general for any other ports. > > If upstream says it’s stable, it’s what we provide in almost all cases. > > > I have confidence in perl5.22 > > itself but the fact that it is stable says nothing about whether the > various Perl modules work with it properly. > > traditionally, we find out when things break by people complaining - as a > project we don’t do a lot of proactive testing. > > > They are completely untested on Macports > > with respect to this version other than to say that they build. Because > of the apathy towards supporting Perl modules, in general, by the MacPorts > maintainer community (952/1373 modules are nomaintainer), the only time > modules actually get tested is when they are updated. Maybe. > > > > And this testing is really cursory. > > we should set up something to run the automated test suite included with > almost every module. > > We should probably get out of the business of perl module portfiles > entirely, too. > > > I am concerned that switching to perl5.22 immediately will inevitably > cause unexpected consequences in terms of module useability. > > most things will probably work, some things are probably already broken, > anything remaining is somewhat reasonable to fix as people report it. > > > My compromise proposal is to switch to perl5.20 as the default now and > drop all Perl versions except perl5.20 and perl5.22. Then plan to drop > perl5.20 > > in say three to six months, after there is time for upstream module > maintainers to address remaining perl5.22 issues, and leave perl5.22 as the > sole Perl version supported. > > I’m not volunteering to do this work, so I guess if you’re willing to do > it - go for it. > > > After that, update the sole Perl port not at the time of the next stable > period, but, again, 3 to 6 months thereafter for the same reasons. > > I would strongly recommend we don’t add lag time here - just update the > perl port once its released and update/patch modules if they turn out to be > broken. Module authors/people who use the modules have some responsibility > to keep their module maintained. > > > An ongoing program of testing existing modules against the current > unstable Perl version would be a further improvement in quality > control/assurance but I doubt we have the interest or manpower available to > do it. > > I believe cpan already does automated test suite runs of several versions > of perl on several OSes for modules - no need for us to duplicate that. > > > Enough discussion. Let's make a decision and get on with it. > > -- > Daniel J. Luke > +========================================================+ > | *---------------- [email protected] ----------------* | > | *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* | > +========================================================+ > | Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily | > | reflect the opinions of my employer. | > +========================================================+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > macports-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev >
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
