Proper way to add $destroot/opt/local/libexec/perl5.20 to PATH

Hi, The command sudo port -v -t test p5.20-catalyst-helper-authdbic fails because it tries to call catalyst.pl directly which is otherwise either in /opt/local/bin/catalyst.pl-5.20 or in /opt/local/libexec/perl5.20/catalyst.pl (and probably hidden inside $destroot while testing

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

suggestion about the best way to get the major part of >>>> p5.18 and p5.20 modules working then? >> >> In a dev repo (on someone's machine): >> >> replace perl5 symlink port with a port for perl5.20. Update the perl5 >> portgroup to just make p5-foo po

Re: perl5.20

;) >>> What's your suggestion about the best way to get the major part of >>> p5.18 and p5.20 modules working then? > > In a dev repo (on someone's machine): > > replace perl5 symlink port with a port for perl5.20. Update the perl5 > portgroup to just ma

Re: perl5.20

estion about the best way to get the major part of >> p5.18 and p5.20 modules working then? In a dev repo (on someone's machine): replace perl5 symlink port with a port for perl5.20. Update the perl5 portgroup to just make p5-foo ports that work with whatever the current perl5 port is

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

gt; /opt/local/var/macports/sources/rsync.macports.org/release/tarballs/ports/perl/p5-pdl/files/fix-pdldocdb.pl > line 59. > > > The first one is >my ( $sym, %hash ) = split chr(0), $txt; > and the second one is a consequence of the first one failing. I don't > speak Pe

Re: perl5.20

23, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Daniel J. Luke > wrote: > >> 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 >

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

. I can’t even try > p5.20-pdl until p5.20-digest-sha1 is fixed. > > note that they both build find on a 'vanilla' install of perl5.20... > -- > Daniel J. Luke > ++ > | * dl...@geeklair.

Re: perl5.20

n a 'vanilla' install of perl5.20... -- Daniel J. Luke ++ | * dl...@geeklair.net * |

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

then. However >>> spending an enormous amount of time changing and fixing a large number of >>> ports would be almost a wasted effort (given that most of the work done now >>> will be thrown away anyway). >>>> But I do point out that perl 5.20 is the curre

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

s would be almost a wasted effort (given that most of the work done now >> will be thrown away anyway). >> > But I do point out that perl 5.20 is the current stable release >> And we didn't even port any noticable amount of ports to 5.18, let alone >> make 5.18 the de

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

eir modules around for a while. >> only perl5.18 currently has a maintainer in MacPorts. >> >> upstream has perl5.18 in maintenance mode, and recommends installing >> perl5.20 (previous perl5.x versions are all End of life). > We have two topics going here: > > 1

Re: perl5.20

their modules around for a while. >> only perl5.18 currently has a maintainer in MacPorts. >> >> upstream has perl5.18 in maintenance mode, and recommends installing >> perl5.20 (previous perl5.x versions are all End of life). > We have two topics going here: > >

Re: perl5.20

aintainer in MacPorts. > > upstream has perl5.18 in maintenance mode, and recommends installing perl5.20 > (previous perl5.x versions are all End of life). We have two topics going here: 1) trimming old/outdated/unsupported perl ports 2) what to do about Mojca's commit that broke p

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 >&

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 &

Re: perl5.20

t (given that most of the work done now will be > thrown away anyway). > > But I do point out that perl 5.20 is the current stable release > And we didn't even port any noticable amount of ports to 5.18, let alone make > 5.18 the default perl version. So here's my short pr

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

test whether we could make it work this way with > perl5.20 *before* we add thousand new sub-ports. If there would be no > problems, I would prefer to make the same change on all other perl > versions later (unless someone comes with a complete new scheme before > that). > > Such kin

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 perl5.2

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 patch

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

perl5.20

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 p5.20-encoding-fixlatin ---> Attempting to fetch p5.