I. Szczesniak wrote:
> On 5/26/09, James Carlson <James.D.Carlson at sun.com> wrote:
>
>> Rich Burridge writes:
>> > Perl 5.10.x is binary-incompatible with 5.8.x, so it will be
>> > necessary
>> > to declare 5.8.x EOF in OpenSolaris, and remove it in a later
>> > version.
>> > A separate case will be submitted for this.
>>
>> Is the EOF announcement for 5.8.x part of this case (with only the
>> removal being a future case), or are both parts for a later case?
>> (I'd argue that the former is both simple and likely makes more sense
>> here; if it's the latter, then please explain the status of 5.10.x
>> alongside 5.8.x.)
>>
>> > Unlike previous releases, 5.10.x will not integrate in to O/N, but
>> > will instead move to SFW.
>>
>> I'll be glad to see it go (eventually) for the improvement in build
>> time,
>>
>
> Is this the only justification? Bits delivered via SFW commonly have
> substandard quality and are very poorly integrated. I fear that
> putting a critical system component such as perl into SFW will affect
> the quality of Opensolaris as whole piece.
>
Can you cite any evidence of this? I think a lot of excellent software
is delivered via SFW.
> If there is no other justification build time please keep perl in
> ONNV. Or derail this case and write memo why perl should move to SFW.
>
> Irek
>
I disagree.
-- Garrett
