> On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 03:58:41PM -0400, David Grove wrote:
> > it's been 13 months since 5.6 was released,
> > and two commercial entities have so far accepted it:
> ActiveState and SuSE.
>
> "a complete, barefaced lie".
To be a lie, it must be purposeful. I am not above error, however.
> Who do you get your Perl from?
I build my own. It's (historically speaking) the only way to get a reliable
Perl on Win32, though some module still don't compile without "proprietary"
hacks.
> Redhat? They ship 5.6.0 in RH7.0
>
> Mandrake? Hrm, perl-5.600-30mdk.i586.rpm. Yep, that'd be 5.6.0
My information on this comes from discussion (asking directly) in undernet
#linux. If this is in error, tell it to them. My stating this comes from
actual research short of purchasing every linux on the planet just to see if
they have Perl. The research took place specifically to see whether 5.6 was
appropriate for PerlMagic, and it was place in 5.6 only because Win32 users
thought they needed it, though several of the P5P some months ago suggested
a strong warning to my users.
> Solaris? Talk to Alan - Perl 5.6.1 going into Solaris 9.
Somebody said it was and described why.
> Debian? They're not commercial, but they're still a pretty big OS distro;
> let's have a look in the next release: (the "testing" distro -
> Debian release
> very infrequently.)
> http://packages.debian.org/testing/interpreters/perl-5.6.html
> shows me they're
> going to be shipping - oh, Perl 5.6.1. Even better.
What? You mean they're actually accepting it a year and a half later in a
testing version?
I'm not sure you made a point here.
> Anywhere else? :)
FreeBSD comes to mind, among others.
Can we get back to the subject now?
p
