On Mon, Dec 26, 2022 at 5:38 PM Russ Allbery <r...@cpan.org> wrote: > Leon Timmermans <faw...@gmail.com> writes: > > That said, I would really appreciate it if in the future people would > > talk a bit more with their upstreams when incrementing their perl > > dependency; this could easily have been not so easy to work around. > > Is there a forum in which this sort of conversation takes place? I would > be happy to have this discussion; I just don't know where to do it. Maybe > perl5-porters, which I haven't been subscribed to for some years (although > I send release notifications here) because it used to be super-high > volume, but maybe it's not any more? >
I guess p5p would have been the most obvious place to have this discussion in this particular case. Toolchain doesn't really do email for some reason. > Anyway, the reason why I thought this was safe is because Pod::Man is part > of Perl core, so it's always available. I assume the problem is that > Module::Build is requesting a later version than what comes with Perl in > 5.8 (for Unicode support), and CPAN doesn't have the same support that > PyPI has for providing multiple versions and being able to fall back on an > older version if the newer version doesn't meet available constraints > (such as not supporting the current version of Perl)? > Yeah, I can see where that assumption comes from. > In the future, I would like to be able to use the package NAMESPACE VERSION > syntax instead of $VERSION and the $foo->@* syntax instead of @{ $foo }, > so eventually it would be nice to require Perl 5.024 or later, although I > know that's much too aggressive at the moment. > There's an interesting conundrum there. If the toolchain doesn't depend on any new functionality you're not constrained there, but that also means that any such new functionality goes largely unused. Leon