Re: perl5.20

Note that this thread has now devolved into discussing (bikeshedding?) the longer-term TODO ideas on the list, while conveniently ignoring the steps we can take /today/ to make the perl situation in MacPorts better. On Jul 31, 2014, at 3:15 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > On Jul 31, 2014, at 2:04

Re: perl5.20

On 2014-8-1 05:04 , Daniel J. Luke wrote: > On Jul 31, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> >> Various scripts have previously been developed to edit portfiles to increase >> ports' revisions automatically. > > link? is there one in the repo? do we trust it enough to (frequently) run it > o

Re: perl5.20

On Jul 31, 2014, at 2:50 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > >> On Jul 28, 2014, at 6:35 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: TODO: - some way to mass rev-bump/force rebuild/force reinstall of all p5 ports when the perl5 port changes (ideally something that could be done from within the perl5

Re: perl5.20

On Jul 28, 2014, at 6:37 PM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: >> If we only installed one version of perl5, this would be a lot easier (and >> we'd have a chance at having things actually work relatively smoothly). > > And we would probably be stu

Re: perl5.20

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > > If we only installed one version of perl5, this would be a lot easier (and > we'd have a chance at having things actually work relatively smoothly). And we would probably be stuck with nobody daring to upgrade Perl to 5.22 ;) >>> What's

Re: perl5.20

On Jul 27, 2014, at 9:15 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > >> I cannot imagine anyone actually checking if all the 2000 modules >> (cca. 1000 modules for perl 5.18 and 5.20) work properly and are >> compatible with Perl 5.18/5.20. all of the cpan hosted distrobutions should come with a test suite that g

Re: perl5.20

> On Jul 27, 2014, at 7:50 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>> On Jul 27, 2014, at 3:59 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Joshua Root wrote: On 2014-7-24 01:20 , Mojca Miklavec wrote: > One slightly ea

Re: perl5.20

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> On Jul 27, 2014, at 3:59 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Joshua Root wrote: >>> On 2014-7-24 01:20 , Mojca Miklavec wrote: One slightly easier step-by-step approach could be the following 1.) Re

Re: perl5.20

> On Jul 27, 2014, at 3:59 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Joshua Root wrote: >> On 2014-7-24 01:20 , Mojca Miklavec wrote: >>> One slightly easier step-by-step approach could be the following >>> >>> 1.) Replace >>>perl5.branches 5.14 5.16 5.18 >>> in a

Re: perl5.20

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Joshua Root wrote: > On 2014-7-24 01:20 , Mojca Miklavec wrote: >> One slightly easier step-by-step approach could be the following >> >> 1.) Replace >> perl5.branches 5.14 5.16 5.18 >> in all perl modules with >> perl5.branches_blacklist 5.8 5.10 5.12

Re: perl5.20

On Jul 24, 2014, at 12:48 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > So far I’m hitting a few bumps with p5.20-digest-sha1 [1] and p5.18-pdl not > compiling. I can’t even try p5.20-pdl until p5.20-digest-sha1 is fixed. > > The digest-sha1 works for me, pdl takes a bit longer, but eventually > fails for me as

Re: perl5.20

Do you also have the years when Apple made each of these versions its system perl as well? On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Mark Anderson wrote: > Yeah, I'm with Daniel here. I think we should only support the latest > version of Perl. > > From perl.org: "*We recommend that you always run the l

Re: perl5.20

On 2014-7-24 01:20 , Mojca Miklavec wrote: > One slightly easier step-by-step approach could be the following > > 1.) Replace > perl5.branches 5.14 5.16 5.18 > in all perl modules with > perl5.branches_blacklist 5.8 5.10 5.12 > or to remove branche_blacklist altogether if the module b

Re: perl5.20

Dear Frank, first of all, thanks a lot for doing the mass update of the number of Perl modules. On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Frank Schima wrote: > On Jul 23, 2014, at 9:20 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > >> One slightly easier step-by-step approach could be the following >> >> 1.) Replace >>

Re: perl5.20

Yeah, I'm with Daniel here. I think we should only support the latest version of Perl. >From perl.org: "*We recommend that you always run the latest stable version, currently 5.20.0"* The whole reason we are in this mess is that long gap you see between 5.8 and 5.10 when we all thought Perl 6 was

Re: perl5.20

On Jul 23, 2014, at 6:26 PM, Frank Schima wrote: > > As long as everything works in 5.20. So far I’m hitting a few bumps with > p5.20-digest-sha1 [1] and p5.18-pdl not compiling. I can’t even try p5.20-pdl > until p5.20-digest-sha1 is fixed. note that they both build find on a 'vanilla' insta

Re: perl5.20

On Jul 23, 2014, at 8:20 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > > 1.) Replace >perl5.branches 5.14 5.16 5.18 > in all perl modules with >perl5.branches_blacklist 5.8 5.10 5.12 > or to remove branche_blacklist altogether if the module builds with > all perl versions. When that blacklist isn't

Re: perl5.20

On Jul 23, 2014, at 9:20 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > One slightly easier step-by-step approach could be the following > > 1.) Replace >perl5.branches 5.14 5.16 5.18 > in all perl modules with >perl5.branches_blacklist 5.8 5.10 5.12 > or to remove branche_blacklist altogether if the

Re: perl5.20

On Jul 22, 2014, at 4:40 PM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Frank Schima wrote: >> >> I have a bunch of p5 port changes ready to commit, but I wanted to test the >> p5.20 versions first to see if they at least build. > > Can you please test the following patch? >

Re: perl5.20

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > On Jul 22, 2014, at 11:51 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > > - I'm unable to test 1000 ports. > > we should probably enhance `port test` to be more useful. With the perl > modules (at least), they usually have test suites that we should be abl

Re: perl5.20

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > On Jul 22, 2014, at 5:59 PM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: >> >> But both what you said and what I wrote requires some work and >> testing. And cannot be the answer to "we urgently need to allow 5.20". > > that's why it was under 'longer term' ;-) >

Re: perl5.20

Hi Mojca, On Jul 22, 2014, at 4:40 PM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Frank Schima wrote: >> >> I have a bunch of p5 port changes ready to commit, but I wanted to test the >> p5.20 versions first to see if they at least build. > > Can you please test the following p

Re: perl5.20

On Jul 22, 2014, at 5:59 PM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: >> On Jul 22, 2014, at 11:51 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: >>> On Jul 19, 2014 1:15 AM, "David Evans" wrote: On 7/18/14 3:47 PM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: Well, I'm sorry but I don't re

Re: perl5.20

On Jul 22, 2014, at 11:43 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > On Jul 22, 2014, at 12:37 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: >> (and/or won't rev-upgrade just fix these when upgrading perl? if it doesn't, >> can we just make it fix them?) > > rev-upgrade is a way for people to discover ports that are linked impro

Re: perl5.20

On Jul 22, 2014, at 12:37 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > (and/or won't rev-upgrade just fix these when upgrading perl? if it doesn't, > can we just make it fix them?) rev-upgrade is a way for people to discover ports that are linked improperly that need to be fixed. rev-upgrade itself is not the

Re: perl5.20

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Frank Schima wrote: > > I have a bunch of p5 port changes ready to commit, but I wanted to test the > p5.20 versions first to see if they at least build. Can you please test the following patch? https://trac.macports.org/ticket/43480#comment:4 Mojca _

Re: perl5.20

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > On Jul 22, 2014, at 11:51 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: >> >> On Jul 19, 2014 1:15 AM, "David Evans" wrote: >> > On 7/18/14 3:47 PM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: >> > Well, I'm sorry but I don't really see the need for these experiments. >> >> At the mo

Re: perl5.20

On Jul 22, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Frank Schima wrote: > We still have a number of ports that require perl 5.12 right now however. So > we may not be able to remove that yet. I will try to file a ticket about this > soon if one has not been created (I forget at this point). I have just now created

Re: perl5.20

On 7/22/14 2:35 PM, Frank Schima wrote: > BTW, Mojca is a “she”. :) Oops, boy is my face red. Please accept my apologies, Mojca! Dave ___ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-

Re: perl5.20

On Jul 22, 2014, at 3:25 PM, David Evans wrote: > On 7/22/14 1:01 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: >>> I think it is way too early to be switching to it by default. Much less the >>> only option. So I vote we at least keep perl 5.16 and perl 5.18 and all of >>> their modules around for a while. >>

Re: perl5.20

On Jul 22, 2014, at 5:25 PM, David Evans wrote: > > On 7/22/14 1:01 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: >>> I think it is way too early to be switching to it by default. Much less the >>> only option. So I vote we at least keep perl 5.16 and perl 5.18 and all of >>> their modules around for a while. >>

Re: perl5.20

On 7/22/14 1:01 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: >> I think it is way too early to be switching to it by default. Much less the >> only option. So I vote we at least keep perl 5.16 and perl 5.18 and all of >> their modules around for a while. > only perl5.18 currently has a maintainer in MacPorts. > >

Re: perl5.20

On Jul 22, 2014, at 3:50 PM, Frank Schima wrote: > > On Jul 22, 2014, at 11:37 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: >> So here's my short proposal: >> >> 1. switch the perl5 port to actually install perl5.20.x >> 2. deprecate and remove the other perl5.x ports >> 3. change the perl5 portgroup to just buil

Re: perl5.20

On Jul 22, 2014, at 11:37 AM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > So here's my short proposal: > > 1. switch the perl5 port to actually install perl5.20.x > 2. deprecate and remove the other perl5.x ports > 3. change the perl5 portgroup to just build/install p5 ports that work with > whatever we install as

Re: perl5.20

On Jul 22, 2014, at 11:51 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > > On Jul 19, 2014 1:15 AM, "David Evans" wrote: > > On 7/18/14 3:47 PM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > > Well, I'm sorry but I don't really see the need for these experiments. > > At the moment it is very inconvenient to upgrade perl from 5.x.y to

Re: perl5.20

On Jul 19, 2014 1:15 AM, "David Evans" wrote: > On 7/18/14 3:47 PM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > > Well, I'm sorry but I don't really see the need for these experiments. At the moment it is very inconvenient to upgrade perl from 5.x.y to 5.x.(y+1). A bunch of "random" ports become broken "just because"

Re: perl5.20

On 7/18/14 3:47 PM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:21 AM, David Evans wrote: >> I suggest you put it back the way it was for now so that all the perl >> versions work >> the same. I think that's what the port group is expecting. > My idea was to test whether we could make it wo

Re: perl5.20

On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:21 AM, David Evans wrote: > > I suggest you put it back the way it was for now so that all the perl > versions work > the same. I think that's what the port group is expecting. My idea was to test whether we could make it work this way with perl5.20 *before* we add thou

Re: perl5.20

On 7/18/14 3:14 PM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: >>> In my opinion it doesn't really make sense to use the last number to >>> install the modules or at least it's not "compatible" with the

Re: perl5.20

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:57 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote: > On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: >> >> In my opinion it doesn't really make sense to use the last number to >> install the modules or at least it's not "compatible" with the way > > The problem with this is that XS-bas

Re: perl5.20

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > In my opinion it doesn't really make sense to use the last number to > install the modules or at least it's not "compatible" with the way > The problem with this is that XS-based modules can in fact be incompatible between minor versions.

Re: perl5.20

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Frank Schima wrote: > Hi all, > > > I cannot get any perl 5.20 ports to build. They all fail in staging. What am > I doing wrong? I think it's my fault. I only figured it out a few days ago, but didn't take the time to fix it yet. I patched perl5.20 in such a way

Re: perl5.20

On 7/18/14 12:07 PM, Frank Schima wrote: > > On Jul 18, 2014, at 12:46 PM, David Evans > wrote: > >> On 7/18/14 10:40 AM, Frank Schima wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> >>> I cannot get any perl 5.20 ports to build. They all fail in staging. >>> What am I doing wrong? For exam

Re: perl5.20

On Jul 18, 2014, at 12:46 PM, David Evans wrote: > On 7/18/14 10:40 AM, Frank Schima wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> >> I cannot get any perl 5.20 ports to build. They all fail in staging. What am >> I doing wrong? For example: >> >> $ sudo port install p5.20-encoding-fixlatin >> ---> Computing dep

Re: perl5.20

On 7/18/14 10:40 AM, Frank Schima wrote: > Hi all, > > > I cannot get any perl 5.20 ports to build. They all fail in staging. > What am I doing wrong? For example: > > $ sudo port install p5.20-encoding-fixlatin > ---> Computing dependencies for p5.20-encoding-fixlatin > ---> Fetching archive for