portupgrade to Perl 5.10.0 ??

[Garrett Cooper]

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Václav Haisman <v.haisman at sh.cvut.cz> wrote:
>>
>> What if the ports infrastructure had additional flag, say EXPERIMENTAL.
>> Ports marked as such would not build/install by default unless something,
>> say ALLOW_EXPERIMENTAL_PORTS=yes, was defined. That way we (people
>> interested in the port) can work on improving it without burdening users
>> that want just stable things.
>>
>> Without existing port, even if broken one, nobody can easily start helping,
>> unless the person wants to start over from scratch, which is considerably
>> harder than starting from semi-finished/working port.
>
> Václav,
>     Given experience with the ports tree, it's such a large beast
> that doing something like that would be unreasonable. This isn't
> Gentoo's portage tree where packages can be masked and unmasked at
> will. Adding an EXPERIMENTAL flag would just complicate things a lot.
>     However, like back in the day (last year) when major changes
> affected the ports tree when X.org 7.2 was being imported, Florent
> published a snapshot of the tree (IIRC) and allowed people to verify
> whether or not it was stable. Then again the main ports tree was also
> frozen, so meh...
>     Operating with a separate Perl ports dir (lang/perl5.10) than
> mainline (lang/perl) would also be helpful I would think...
> -Garrett

s/unreasonable/reasonable/