announcement of future perl changes.

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 08:49:55PM +0400, Andrej Zverev wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Tom Hukins <tom at freebsd.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 07:38:28PM +0400, Andrej Zverev wrote:
> > > I'm sorry but I don't get idea at all. Why do i need argue on
> > > perl5-ports? and I don't see how I'm trying to violate POLA.
> > > Can you explain in more details, please?
> >
> > Thank you for your quick reply.  I apologise for my confusing reply.
> > I'll try to explain better:
> >
> > You propose replacing major.minor.patch with major.minor for Perl 5 in
> > FreeBSD's ports and packages.  If this change makes sense, why
> > restrict it to these?  Why not share it with perl users everywhere?
> >
> You asking me almost same thing like: if we change PREFIX for port, why
> don't share such information with other people. In reality I did not  hack
> perl source code itself, all what i did is avaliable for all perl users
> (via configuration).
> Well, you can look at debian or fedora and maybe more distros which already
> done such trick.
> 
> 
> >
> > Furthermore, by restricting discussion to this list, and not
> > perl5-porters, you fail to validate your assumption that the patch
> > level of the version number will never include API/ABI changes.
> 
> My patch only change directory (part of it) where perl will be installed.
> Every other aspects still remain (binary name and etc).
> perl5-porters don't need to be involved.
> 

Lots of linux distribution already does major.minor, and there is also some
making this directory only perl${major} and I have also seen some perl without
version.

The perl build system allow that exactly for distributor to chose what fits best
their needs and how they handle the upgrades.


> 
> >  If
> > you haven't validated this assumption, what do you plan to do if it
> > turns out to be false?
> > tt
> 
> 
> > As for POLA, perl users everywhere will expect major.minor.patch
> > because it's how perl installs itself.  If FreeBSD changes this for
> > ports and packages, we become a not-quite-perl ghetto that subtly
> > forks the standard distribution.
> >
>  Hell no! :-) In your terms this mean we do violating POLA with every perl
> upgrade.
> 

That is totally wrong, otherwise perl won't provide a mechanism to do it :), btw
have a look at how perl is packaged elsewhere as I said above there is no common
mechanism.

regards,
Bapt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-perl/attachments/20130611/b264dd21/attachment.sig>