Perl version in -STABLE

Andrew J Caines A.J.Caines at
Fri May 16 14:41:01 PDT 2003

> On Thursday 15 May 2003 16:05, Brandon S. Allbery wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-05-15 at 19:02, Wes Peters wrote:
> > > Has anyone run a recent -STABLE with Perl 5.6.1 in place of the
> > > system Perl?  ...
> > I've been doing that (and more recently 5.8.0) via "use.perl port" on
> > -STABLE for a while now; no problems.

Likewise for months with 5.6.1 and "use.perl port" on my up-to-date
-STABLE box. No observed problems with the system or any of my ports
[currently 245] which have been updated since then.

Wes Peters said...
> We've  considered jumping straight to 5.8.0; your input helps make that 
> decision.

As for the "bleeding edge vs. stable" argument, I'd consider perl in the
middle ground between bleeding edge and obsolescence. Evidence reported
here shows that obsolescence is setting in and that 5.8 substantially
`works', so I'd say it's much nearer the latter than the former.

If a perl update in src isn't too hard and doesn't cause any significant
problems which can't be fixed in a reasonable time, then I'm in favour of
an update to whatever most recent version works well (5.8, apparently).

Also worth considering is the time spent (wasted) fixing perl code in
ports to work with the default perl. My recent port of mail/pflogstats
required such attention. This effort would be better spent of the few
things which don't work perfectly with a more current version.

Just because RELENG_4 is nearing its end as reigning STABLE doesn't mean
it won't be used for many years to come, so it can be argued that these
kind of updates are needed more now than ever.

| -Andrew J. Caines-   Unix Systems Engineer   A.J.Caines at  |
| "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary |
|  safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin, 1759 |

More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list