Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
At 2:01 AM -0800 11/14/02, Kris Kennaway wrote: On Thu, Nov 14, 2002, Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote: Why can't someone with a fresh stable do an ls -R / And someone with a fresh current do the same? Because that's only part of the story. What about people updating from other supported "source upgrade" versions (4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7)? I'll try to do as many of these as I can. Is there any initial ISO image available for what will be 5.0-dp2? -- Garance Alistair Drosehn= [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rensselaer Polytechnic Instituteor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 06:01:46AM +1100, Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote: > Why can't someone with a fresh stable do an ls -R / > And someone with a fresh current do the same? Because that's only part of the story. What about people updating from other supported "source upgrade" versions (4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7)? Kris msg46664/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
At 10:17 PM -0800 11/12/02, Doug Barton wrote: David O'Brien wrote: On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:58:44AM +, Mark Murray wrote: > IMVHO, the perl wrapper should be removed altogether, and the > perl port's "use.port" symlink-creating feature should be used > instead. > Do we have consensus on this? The perl wrapper really isn't > working out for all the cases I hoped it would when I committed it. In case another vote is needed, I've always been opposed to the wrapper. tobez and I put some work into getting the use.perl script in the port to DTRT shortly after the demise of base perl, and I'm still willing to help fine tune it if needed. For what it's worth, I still think the idea of a wrapper is a good idea, if it was done right. I do agree that the current implementation isn't quite good enough. But first, to look at the issue that started this thread: enigma# make -V BUILD_DEPENDS perl5.6.1:/usr/ports/lang/perl5 However 5.0 has perl5.6.1 in the base system still, so this dependency is always satisfied, the perl port is never added and the port build that relies on it will fail. [Does the build really require 5.6.1, or would other versions of perl5 also work?] Kris complained that there is a wrapper in /usr/bin/perl5.6.1. When people are voting, are they voting to remove just that wrapper, or do they want to remove wrappers for all versions? (I just want to be sure no one is surprised by their vote being taken in some way other than how they meant it) I assume everyone so far has been voting on getting rid of all the perl wrappers. I do have ideas for how the perl wrapper could be made better and more useful, but obviously there is nothing I can do which will fix any process who merely checks for the existence of a file to make its decision. I'm also well aware that there are a number of developers who wouldn't like a wrapper, no matter how it worked. So, I vote for improving the wrapper instead of removing it, but wouldn't want to spend much time debating it. I'll also agree that it might be a little late in this release cycle to try and come up with a great wrapper, even if everyone loves the idea. [note: RPI has been using a wrapper for perl and other scripting languages for more than 10 years now, which is why I think a wrapper can be useful if it is done correctly] -- Garance Alistair Drosehn= [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rensselaer Polytechnic Instituteor [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
+---[ Garance A Drosihn ]-- | At 10:58 PM + 11/12/02, Mark Murray wrote: | > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 08:15:09AM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote: | >> | >> > I would rather have some explicit list of filenames where we have | >> > good reason to delete them, and then adapt the above script to at | >> > least tell the user about the remaining files. Perhaps even delete | >> > them, but only *after* saving a copy away in some tar file. Just | >> > to do something which is a bit friendlier to all the people who | >> > will be seeing 5.0 for the first time. | >> | >> Yeah, this is essentially what I was asking for. | > | >Anyone have a trash-box that we can do a 4-STABLE --> 5-CURRENT | >upgrade on to diff the file list? | > | >I have a box that I'd rather not trash, but if need be I'll use that. | | This is what I am planning to do. I am a little short on free time | right now, what is the "timetable for need" on this? My hope was | to get to this sometime before the end of the month. Why can't someone with a fresh stable do an ls -R / And someone with a fresh current do the same? Check the diff ? I can provide an ls -R / | grep -v /usr/local for a fairly recent current -- Totally Holistic Enterprises Internet| | Andrew Milton The Internet (Aust) Pty Ltd | M:+61 416 022 411 | ACN: 082 081 472 ABN: 83 082 081 472 |[EMAIL PROTECTED]| Carpe Daemon To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
> >Anyone have a trash-box that we can do a 4-STABLE --> 5-CURRENT > >upgrade on to diff the file list? > > > >I have a box that I'd rather not trash, but if need be I'll use that. > > This is what I am planning to do. I am a little short on free time > right now, what is the "timetable for need" on this? My hope was > to get to this sometime before the end of the month. I can only do this after BSDConEU - ie next week. M -- Mark Murray Beware! I'm umop ap!sdn To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
> Where are we with making lang/perl5's package default selected in > sysinstall? We are discussing it under your excellent chairmanship :-). > While I've been opposed to the inclusion of the wrapper since before it > was imported, I think its removal would be well accompanied by the > sysinstall change. > > If there's already a precedent in sysinstall, I'll happily go > cut-n-paste a solution myself. Just tell me what the precedent is. :-) Closest is probably X. M -- Mark Murray Beware! I'm umop ap!sdn To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
On (2002/11/12 22:17), Doug Barton wrote: > In case another vote is needed, I've always been opposed to the wrapper. > tobez and I put some work into getting the use.perl script in the port > to DTRT shortly after the demise of base perl, and I'm still willing to > help fine tune it if needed. I hate to drag this out further, but nobody else seems to have mentioned something I think is important. Where are we with making lang/perl5's package default selected in sysinstall? While I've been opposed to the inclusion of the wrapper since before it was imported, I think its removal would be well accompanied by the sysinstall change. If there's already a precedent in sysinstall, I'll happily go cut-n-paste a solution myself. Just tell me what the precedent is. :-) Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
David O'Brien wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:58:44AM +, Mark Murray wrote: > > IMVHO, the perl wrapper should be removed altogether, and the > > perl port's "use.port" symlink-creating feature should be used > > instead. > > Do we have consensus on this? The perl wrapper really isn't working out > for all the cases I hoped it would when I committed it. In case another vote is needed, I've always been opposed to the wrapper. tobez and I put some work into getting the use.perl script in the port to DTRT shortly after the demise of base perl, and I'm still willing to help fine tune it if needed. FWIW, Doug To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 10:58:12PM +, Mark Murray wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 08:15:09AM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > > > > I would rather have some explicit list of filenames where we have > > > good reason to delete them, and then adapt the above script to at > > > least tell the user about the remaining files. Perhaps even delete > > > them, but only *after* saving a copy away in some tar file. Just > > > to do something which is a bit friendlier to all the people who > > > will be seeing 5.0 for the first time. > > > > Yeah, this is essentially what I was asking for. > > Anyone have a trash-box that we can do a 4-STABLE --> 5-CURRENT > upgrade on to diff the file list? > > I have a box that I'd rather not trash, but if need be I'll use that. You can probably just do it in a jail, by successively unpacking the various 4.x-release installation distributions (everything except the sources..actually, maybe those too, since things will break if people try to just unpack the new 5.0 sources over the 4.x sources). Kris msg46581/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 08:15:09AM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > > > I would rather have some explicit list of filenames where we have > > good reason to delete them, and then adapt the above script to at > > least tell the user about the remaining files. Perhaps even delete > > them, but only *after* saving a copy away in some tar file. Just > > to do something which is a bit friendlier to all the people who > > will be seeing 5.0 for the first time. > > Yeah, this is essentially what I was asking for. Anyone have a trash-box that we can do a 4-STABLE --> 5-CURRENT upgrade on to diff the file list? I have a box that I'd rather not trash, but if need be I'll use that. M -- Mark Murray Beware! I'm umop ap!sdn To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 08:15:09AM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > I would rather have some explicit list of filenames where we have > good reason to delete them, and then adapt the above script to at > least tell the user about the remaining files. Perhaps even delete > them, but only *after* saving a copy away in some tar file. Just > to do something which is a bit friendlier to all the people who > will be seeing 5.0 for the first time. Yeah, this is essentially what I was asking for. Kris msg46578/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:34:23PM +, Mark Murray wrote: > > > Do we have consensus on this? The perl wrapper really isn't working out > > > for all the cases I hoped it would when I committed it. > > > > Yes, I think so. DES (The author?) doesn't mind. I'm for removal and so is > > Kris. > > Why does DES have to be asked? I did the import. It does not matter > where the code came from. Careful. DES put effort into writing that, and throwing it away without so much as a "by your leave" is IMHO rude. As it turns out, his position is pretty clear, but I still want to do this properly. > Do I need to send out a **HEADS UP** to make it absolutely clear what is > being proposed? Or can I move forward working on the theory that working > nice for ports building is sufficient backing? Please send a "HEADS UP" nowish, and do the removal a week after that. There will inevitably be bikeshedding. Please be very gentle. M -- Mark Murray Beware! I'm umop ap!sdn To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:34:23PM +, Mark Murray wrote: > > Do we have consensus on this? The perl wrapper really isn't working out > > for all the cases I hoped it would when I committed it. > > Yes, I think so. DES (The author?) doesn't mind. I'm for removal and so is > Kris. Why does DES have to be asked? I did the import. It does not matter where the code came from. Do I need to send out a **HEADS UP** to make it absolutely clear what is being proposed? Or can I move forward working on the theory that working nice for ports building is sufficient backing? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
At 11:13 PM + 11/8/02, Mark Murray wrote:
> > I mean *all* the cruft -- old modules and config files,
> > deprecated binaries and man pages, even old shlibs if it's safe.
>
> I agree with you, and I was giving an example that a lesser
> form of this is already required during the upgrade.
>
> It would be VERY useful if someone could develop a script to
> do this (e.g. install various versions of 4.x and do an upgrade,
> then collect a complete list of all the stale files).
Sometime soon I hope to get a new machine for my freebsd testing,
one which would be considerably faster than the one I have. It
should also soon be true that I won't be as swamped at my "day job",
so I would have some time to try to do something like this.
I would only be doing this on i386 though, and I don't know if there
would be significant differences for a similar list on alpha's.
#=
#!/bin/sh
installdirs= /bin /sbin /usr/bin /usr/sbin /usr/libdata
/usr/libexec /usr/include /usr/share /usr/lib
for dir in ${installdirs} ; do
find ${dir} -type f -ctime +1 -delete
find ${dir} -type d -empty -delete
find ${dir} -type l -delete
done
# 4.x -> 5.x only:
# rm -rf /kernel* /modules*
cd /usr/src && make installworld
#=
The second "make installworld" is to repopulate your lib/compat/ dirs,
rebuild the hierarchy and to catch files (groff support IIRC) that
this erroneously deletes.
I do this pretty often.
With 5.0-release, we will start to have people who are upgrading
"somewhat production-ish" systems from 4.x-stable. I think it
would be rather hostile of us to blindly remove files based only
on the last time they were changed. The users could have a number
of files of their own in these paths, files that will do absolutely
no harm if left, and which could cause problems if they are blindly
removed. Since this will be "5.0-stable", we will not be able to
use the favorite excuse that "hey, this branch is documented as the
cutting edge, so if you were screwed by it then it's your own fault".
I would rather have some explicit list of filenames where we have
good reason to delete them, and then adapt the above script to at
least tell the user about the remaining files. Perhaps even delete
them, but only *after* saving a copy away in some tar file. Just
to do something which is a bit friendlier to all the people who
will be seeing 5.0 for the first time.
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rensselaer Polytechnic Instituteor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:58:44AM +, Mark Murray wrote: > > IMVHO, the perl wrapper should be removed altogether, and the > > perl port's "use.port" symlink-creating feature should be used > > instead. > > Do we have consensus on this? The perl wrapper really isn't working out > for all the cases I hoped it would when I committed it. Yes, I think so. DES (The author?) doesn't mind. I'm for removal and so is Kris. M -- Mark Murray Beware! I'm umop ap!sdn To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:58:44AM +, Mark Murray wrote: > IMVHO, the perl wrapper should be removed altogether, and the > perl port's "use.port" symlink-creating feature should be used > instead. Do we have consensus on this? The perl wrapper really isn't working out for all the cases I hoped it would when I committed it. -- -- David ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
> > I mean *all* the cruft -- old modules and config files, deprecated binaries
> > and man pages, even old shlibs if it's safe.
>
> I agree with you, and I was giving an example that a lesser form of
> this is already required during the upgrade.
>
> It would be VERY useful if someone could develop a script to do this
> (e.g. install various versions of 4.x and do an upgrade, then collect
> a complete list of all the stale files).
#=
#!/bin/sh
installdirs=/bin /sbin /usr/bin /usr/sbin /usr/libdata /usr/libexec /usr/include
/usr/share /usr/lib
for dir in ${installdirs} ; do
find ${dir} -type f -ctime +1 -delete
find ${dir} -type d -empty -delete
find ${dir} -type l -delete
done
# 4.x -> 5.x only:
# rm -rf /kernel* /modules*
cd /usr/src && make installworld
#=
The second "make installworld" is to repopulate your lib/compat/ dirs,
rebuild the hierarchy and to catch files (groff support IIRC) that
this erroneously deletes.
I do this pretty often.
M
--
o Mark Murray
\_
O.\_Warning: this .sig is umop ap!sdn
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
Ray Kohler wrote: > > Yes, it's already a mandatory step (remove old includes, or you can't > > build C++ programs). > > I mean *all* the cruft -- old modules and config files, deprecated binaries > and man pages, even old shlibs if it's safe. You need a registration system which can subsume all installed software into discrete components, and deinstall those components which have been removed, or, better, upgrade them with new version of components which are no longer default, and which have been made optional. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 04:22:24PM -0500, Ray Kohler wrote: > > From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 8 16:15:05 2002 > > Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 13:02:58 -0800 > > From: Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: Ray Kohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper > > > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 06:54:37AM -0500, Ray Kohler wrote: > > > > > Then we're back to the problem of there being a complete stale perl in > > > the base system after a 4.X->5.X upgrade, but then, I've always thought > > > that "clean out the cruft" ought to be a mandatory step in upgrading. > > > > Yes, it's already a mandatory step (remove old includes, or you can't > > build C++ programs). > > I mean *all* the cruft -- old modules and config files, deprecated binaries > and man pages, even old shlibs if it's safe. I agree with you, and I was giving an example that a lesser form of this is already required during the upgrade. It would be VERY useful if someone could develop a script to do this (e.g. install various versions of 4.x and do an upgrade, then collect a complete list of all the stale files). Kris To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 8 16:15:05 2002 > Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 13:02:58 -0800 > From: Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Ray Kohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 06:54:37AM -0500, Ray Kohler wrote: > > > Then we're back to the problem of there being a complete stale perl in > > the base system after a 4.X->5.X upgrade, but then, I've always thought > > that "clean out the cruft" ought to be a mandatory step in upgrading. > > Yes, it's already a mandatory step (remove old includes, or you can't > build C++ programs). I mean *all* the cruft -- old modules and config files, deprecated binaries and man pages, even old shlibs if it's safe. - @ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 06:54:37AM -0500, Ray Kohler wrote: > Then we're back to the problem of there being a complete stale perl in > the base system after a 4.X->5.X upgrade, but then, I've always thought > that "clean out the cruft" ought to be a mandatory step in upgrading. Yes, it's already a mandatory step (remove old includes, or you can't build C++ programs). Kris To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 8 04:15:04 2002 > To: Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper > Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:58:44 + > From: Mark Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > IMVHO, the perl wrapper should be removed altogether, and the > perl port's "use.port" symlink-creating feature should be used > instead. > > M > > > Can someone explain why the perl wrapper needs to be hardlinked to > > perl5.6.1? > > > > The problem I am seeing is this: > > > > USE_PERL5=yes in a port adds the following BUILD_DEPENDS: > > > > enigma# make -V BUILD_DEPENDS > > perl5.6.1:/usr/ports/lang/perl5 > > > > However 5.0 has perl5.6.1 in the base system still, so this dependency > > is always satisfied, the perl port is never added and the port build > > that relies on it will fail. Then we're back to the problem of there being a complete stale perl in the base system after a 4.X->5.X upgrade, but then, I've always thought that "clean out the cruft" ought to be a mandatory step in upgrading. - @ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
IMVHO, the perl wrapper should be removed altogether, and the perl port's "use.port" symlink-creating feature should be used instead. M > Can someone explain why the perl wrapper needs to be hardlinked to > perl5.6.1? > > The problem I am seeing is this: > > USE_PERL5=yes in a port adds the following BUILD_DEPENDS: > > enigma# make -V BUILD_DEPENDS > perl5.6.1:/usr/ports/lang/perl5 > > However 5.0 has perl5.6.1 in the base system still, so this dependency > is always satisfied, the perl port is never added and the port build > that relies on it will fail. > > Kris > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message -- o Mark Murray \_ O.\_Warning: this .sig is umop ap!sdn To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 05:47:51PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote: > Can someone explain why the perl wrapper needs to be hardlinked to > perl5.6.1? revision 1.5 date: 2002-06-07 18:55:42; author: obrien; state: Exp; lines: +1 -0 Install a "perl5.6.1" wrapper. I think this is going too far as now /usr/src has to carefully watch the Perl port to keep this in sync. But this is the only way I am allowed to fix the mozzila build (and other USE_PERL5 ports). Please feel free to back out rev 1.5 if it works better for you. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 05:47:51PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Can someone explain why the perl wrapper needs to be hardlinked to
> perl5.6.1?
>
> The problem I am seeing is this:
>
> USE_PERL5=yes in a port adds the following BUILD_DEPENDS:
>
> enigma# make -V BUILD_DEPENDS
> perl5.6.1:/usr/ports/lang/perl5
>
> However 5.0 has perl5.6.1 in the base system still, so this dependency
> is always satisfied, the perl port is never added and the port build
> that relies on it will fail.
Change that to ${LOCALBASE}/bin/perl5.6.1:/usr/ports/lang/perl5 and you'll
be set.
-Maxim
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: perl5.6.1
> It would be nice to see this version of perl in -CURRENT. It would help > ease the development of mod_perl-2.0 by not having to install the port > and it just makes sense considering the bleeding-edge of the rest of the > system. Coming RSN. Maybe this weekend. M -- o Mark Murray \_ FreeBSD Services Limited O.\_Warning: this .sig is umop ap!sdn To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
