On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Joshua Root wrote:
> On 2012-2-16 11:26 , Dan Ports wrote:
>> In fact, what we have now may be the worst possible world: we claim to
>> support multiple perl versions, and ports have to go to some effort to
>> specify which version they depe
On 2012-2-16 11:26 , Dan Ports wrote:
> In fact, what we have now may be the worst possible world: we claim to
> support multiple perl versions, and ports have to go to some effort to
> specify which version they depend on, but it doesn't even work -- the
> p5.x- perl module po
sion of perl they're depending on and invoking, and non-default
> configurations probably aren't tested often.
>
> In fact, what we have now may be the worst possible world: we claim to
> support multiple perl versions, and ports have to go to some effort to
> specify which ver
y're depending on and invoking, and non-default
configurations probably aren't tested often.
In fact, what we have now may be the worst possible world: we claim to
support multiple perl versions, and ports have to go to some effort to
specify which version they depend on, but it doesn&#x
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 02:29:59PM -0800, Dan Ports wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 02:41:57PM -0500, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> > +1 from me. It would probably also be a good idea to make it perl5.14
> > +threads (and if a non-threaded perl is needed, it should probably be a
> > separate port) at
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 02:41:57PM -0500, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> +1 from me. It would probably also be a good idea to make it perl5.14
> +threads (and if a non-threaded perl is needed, it should probably be a
> separate port) at the same time.
Good point about: +threads. As Eric Cronin pointed
On Feb 14, 2012, at 4:03 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2012, at 13:41, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>> +1 from me. It would probably also be a good idea to make it perl5.14
>> +threads (and if a non-threaded perl is needed, it should probably be a
>> separate port) at the same time.
>
> Yes, wha
On Feb 14, 2012, at 13:41, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> +1 from me. It would probably also be a good idea to make it perl5.14
> +threads (and if a non-threaded perl is needed, it should probably be a
> separate port) at the same time.
Yes, what's the deal with threads? I don't know what it implies.
On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:44 PM, Dan Ports wrote:
> Python has the same issue, but we've gotten pretty good over the years
> at making sure that ports invoke `python2.7` instead of `python`. Not
> so much with perl -- looking through my installed ports, I see a bunch
> of references to /opt/local/bin/p
Although we nominally support having multiple versions of perl
installed, it seems we actually don't do a very good job of it...
A couple weeks ago, I mentioned two problems that will cause multiple
versions of the same module (e.g. p5.12-foo and p5.14-foo) to conflict:
- they install manpages in
10 matches
Mail list logo
