portupgrade to Perl 5.10.0 ??

[David Southwell]

On Friday 11 July 2008 14:02:09 Remko Lodder wrote:
> David Southwell wrote:
> > On Friday 11 July 2008 11:53:50 you wrote:
> >> David Southwell wrote:
> >>> If we had to argue for every port on these terms everyone would spend
> >>> their time arguing and we would have none atall.
> >>>
> >>> It is not as though Perl is an obscure bit of buggy code that none
> >>> uses.
> >>>
> >>> If there is a request then simply a response to your last question is
> >>> needed.
> >>>
> >>> Enough
> >>>
> >>> david.
> >>
> >> So, when can I expect your updated work on the port, build all
> >> dependencies to make sure they keep on working etc? I understand that we
> >> want to have this as soon as possible, but also do keep in mind that we
> >> would like to make sure as much as possible that the code can actually
> >> work. I am not aware of the reason for this taking longer then some of
> >> you expect. But I am sure that there is a reason. It all remains
> >> volunteer work and people might choose to do different things then
> >> satisfy your specific need. Not that I am saying we shouldnt do it, but
> >> I am stating that there is more then just your wish.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> remko
> >
> > This started because I asked a simple question. Is there a possibility of
> > getting perl 5.10.0 and when. I did not expect the third degree
> > <chuckles>
> >
> > Admittedly I am curious why it is taking six months when most ports do
> > not take that long - but curiosity does not imply personal antagonism,
> > criticsm or sarcasm.
> > Thanks
> >
> > david
>
> It also doesn't imply that you can "demand" that people import 5.10.0
> because you want it, need it or whatever. It does mean that probably
> work is underway but that it stalled or something for a reason.
>
> "thanks"
> remko

I have hear no demand from anyone  only reasonable curiosity following six 
months delay. It is:
1. reasonable to ask when
2. Courteous to give a reply.

David

David