portupgrade to Perl 5.10.0 ??
v.haisman at sh.cvut.cz
Sun Jul 13 15:20:43 UTC 2008
Vivek Khera wrote, On 11.7.2008 21:06:
> On Jul 11, 2008, at 2:53 PM, Remko Lodder wrote:
>> 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
> There's no way to do all this testing in a vacuum. Make the port.
> Publish it. People who want to try it out will and then all the
> dependent ports (ie, CPAN modules) that may have broken can get fixed by
> a large group of people who may have more time to volunteer.
This sounds reasonable to me.
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
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.
> Seriously, though... is someone actively working on a perl 5.10 port and
> can we find out what is holding it up for over 6 months now? Around
> February I started wondering about it, but it wasn't such a big deal to
> me then. Now it is becoming more of a big deal because our developers
> want to start using some of the 5.10 features in our new projects, but
> without a port/package it complicates our dev and production environment
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 219 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20080713/7ed2c0bf/signature.pgp
More information about the freebsd-ports