Perl version in -STABLE

[Tim Bunce]

On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 05:40:57PM -0400, Andrew J Caines wrote:
> > 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).

perl 5.8.0 has utf8 problems. Some were fixed for the maintenance
version of 5.8.0 that went into red hat linux 9, but those that
remain have caused problems for people using uft8.

At this stage I'd have to recommend perl 5.6.1 over 5.8.0.

I'd suggest 5.8.1 (release candidate due in a week or three)
is targeted as a future upgrade.

Tim.