Having switched to 5.12 and reinstalled all my modules, I'm noting
only a few issues.
p5-module-sha looks to be included with 5.12. It should probably be
marked as replaced by, or conflicting with, 5.12.
p5-archive-tar is partially included with 5.12. With a quick glance,
the only difference is t
On Feb 27, 2011, at 00:02, Scott Webster wrote:
> So can we revbump all the affected p5 ports now? Is it all p5- ports
> or just some of them?
It was said that only the p5-* ports that compile things need to be rebuilt
(not those that just install files). If that is true, then those portfiles
So can we revbump all the affected p5 ports now? Is it all p5- ports
or just some of them?
Scott
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> On Feb 26, 2011, at 22:54, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>
>> On Feb 26, 2011, at 6:28 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>>
>>> These people don't care about
On Feb 26, 2011, at 22:54, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2011, at 6:28 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> These people don't care about perl, they just care about other software that
>> happens to use perl, and that's an implementation detail they expect the
>> package manager to handle for th
On Feb 26, 2011, at 6:28 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> These people don't care about perl, they just care about other software that
> happens to use perl, and that's an implementation detail they expect the
> package manager to handle for them. This upgrade should have been handled in
> a way th
On Feb 26, 2011, at 10:03 PM, Arno Hautala wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 16:47, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>> My personal opinion is that we shouldn't bother with the 5.x ports. We
>> should have moved perl5 from 5.8 to 5.10 to 5.12 and just rev-bumped the p5
>> ports when the changes were made
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 16:47, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>
> My personal opinion is that we shouldn't bother with the 5.x ports. We should
> have moved perl5 from 5.8 to 5.10 to 5.12 and just rev-bumped the p5 ports
> when the changes were made ...
This sounds pretty sane. Are there any reports of
On Feb 26, 2011, at 8:48 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
>> There may be a case for keeping perl5 around once perl6 appears (if
>> ever) - but I don't know of any reasons to keep 5.8 around.
>
> AFAIK, Perl6 is a completely different and incompatible language
> (unless the Perl6 interpreter can dete
On 2011-02-26 16:47:01 -0500, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> My personal opinion is that we shouldn't bother with the 5.x ports.
> We should have moved perl5 from 5.8 to 5.10 to 5.12 and just
> rev-bumped the p5 ports when the changes were made ...
I completely agree. Like the other ports.
> There may b
On Feb 26, 2011, at 14:02, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Martin Krischik wrote:
>>
>> Am 26.02.11 05:02, schrieb Ryan Schmidt:
>>> Doesn't this update therefore break everybody's system?
>>
>> The answer is YES.
>
> I didn't know you were everybody.
>
> (hint, it didn'
On Feb 26, 2011, at 3:35 PM, Arno Hautala wrote:
>
> Personally, I'm not sure I'm ready to move to 5.12 (I need to
> recompile all my installed p5 modules and test a few scripts), so I've
> resolved things on my side by correcting my "broken" perl5 install
> with perl5+perl5_8.
>
> At least, that
Ryan,
2011/2/25 Ryan Schmidt
>
> On Feb 24, 2011, at 10:51, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> > What do I have to change in the Portfile, so that I do NOT get
> > the -2.7 suffix?
>
> Add this line to the portfile:
>
> python.link_binaries_suffix
>
> That is, you're telling it to use a blank suffix, inst
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 10:02:50PM -0600, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> Your update causes perl5.12 to be installed and become the default version,
> but your update does not cause all p5-* ports to be rebuilt, which you say
> would be necessary. Doesn't this update therefore break everybody's system?
W
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 15:02, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>
> If you've got ideas (or code) for how to help make things better, I'm sure
> people would be happy :)
I think some of the issue is the way that the default was changed.
Previously perl 5.8 was the default and 5.10 and 5.12 were available
On Feb 26, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Martin Krischik wrote:
>
> Am 26.02.11 05:02, schrieb Ryan Schmidt:
>> Doesn't this update therefore break everybody's system?
>
> The answer is YES.
I didn't know you were everybody.
(hint, it didn't break people who were already on perl5.12).
> I can't compile G
On Feb 26, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Martin Krischik wrote:
>
> Am 25.02.11 18:28, schrieb Eric Hall:
>> If you have perl modules that have compiled
>> bits in them they will need to be rebuilt when you
>> upgrade between perl versions (perl5.8 to perl5.12 for
>> example). The same goes if you change p
On 26 Feb 2011, at 16:34, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Mark Hattam wrote:
>>
Error: port activate failed: Image error: /opt/local/bin/a2p is being used
by the active perl5.8 port. Please deactivate this port first, or use
'port -f activate perl5' to for
If you also upgrade perl5.8 then it gets rid of a2p and replaces it
with a2p-5.8 (or something like that) so after you upgrade that you
can activate perl5 without problems. Of course there are still the
other issues...
Scott
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Marko Käning wrote:
>> What am I supp
Am 26.02.11 05:02, schrieb Ryan Schmidt:
> Doesn't this update therefore break everybody's system?
The answer is YES. I can't compile Gimp any more. And if you look at the
bug tracker: Perl Modules have brought pain to the users for over two
years now and no fix is sight.
Martin
--
Martin Kris
Am 25.02.11 18:28, schrieb Eric Hall:
> If you have perl modules that have compiled
> bits in them they will need to be rebuilt when you
> upgrade between perl versions (perl5.8 to perl5.12 for
> example). The same goes if you change perl5.8 variants
> like +threads.
Good that we are all
On 26 Feb 2011, at 16:25, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Mark Hattam wrote:
>>
>> iMac:~ mark$ sudo port activate perl5 @5.12.3_0+perl5_12
>> ---> Computing dependencies for perl5
>> ---> Activating perl5 @5.12.3_0+perl5_12
>> Error: Target org.macports.activate returned
On Feb 26, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Mark Hattam wrote:
>
>>> Error: port activate failed: Image error: /opt/local/bin/a2p is being used
>>> by the active perl5.8 port. Please deactivate this port first, or use
>>> 'port -f activate perl5' to force the activation.
>
> The output from the initial "upg
On 26 Feb 2011, at 16:25, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Mark Hattam wrote:
>>
>> iMac:~ mark$ sudo port activate perl5 @5.12.3_0+perl5_12
>> ---> Computing dependencies for perl5
>> ---> Activating perl5 @5.12.3_0+perl5_12
>> Error: Target org.macports.activate returned
well, did you deactivate perl5 first?
or, did you use "-f" during activate?
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
On Feb 26, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Mark Hattam wrote:
>
> iMac:~ mark$ sudo port activate perl5 @5.12.3_0+perl5_12
> ---> Computing dependencies for perl5
> ---> Activating perl5 @5.12.3_0+perl5_12
> Error: Target org.macports.activate returned: Image error: /opt/local/bin/a2p
> is being used by the
On 26 Feb 2011, at 16:15, Marko Käning wrote:
>> What am I supposed to do ??
>>
>> The following installed ports are outdated:
>> perl5 5.8.9_0 < 5.12.3_0
>> perl5.85.8.9_3 < 5.8.9_4
>> All Done
>> iMac:~ mark$ sudo port upgrade p
> What am I supposed to do ??
>
> The following installed ports are outdated:
> perl5 5.8.9_0 < 5.12.3_0
> perl5.85.8.9_3 < 5.8.9_4
> All Done
> iMac:~ mark$ sudo port upgrade perl5
> ---> Fetching perl5.12
> ---> Attempting to fe
On 25 Feb 2011, at 17:28, Eric Hall wrote:
> FYI-
> I've just commited changes to the perl5*
> ports (perl5, perl5.8, perl5.10, perl5.12) to:
>
> * Make perl5.* install their bin/ and man/
> components with the perl version number in the filename.
>
> * Make the perl5 port link
28 matches
Mail list logo
