portupgrade to Perl 5.10.0 ??

Garrett Cooper yanefbsd at gmail.com
Mon Jul 14 00:31:42 UTC 2008

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Václav Haisman <v.haisman at sh.cvut.cz> wrote:
> 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 stable things.
> 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.

     Given experience with the ports tree, it's such a large beast
that doing something like that would be unreasonable. This isn't
Gentoo's portage tree where packages can be masked and unmasked at
will. Adding an EXPERIMENTAL flag would just complicate things a lot.
     However, like back in the day (last year) when major changes
affected the ports tree when X.org 7.2 was being imported, Florent
published a snapshot of the tree (IIRC) and allowed people to verify
whether or not it was stable. Then again the main ports tree was also
frozen, so meh...
     Operating with a separate Perl ports dir (lang/perl5.10) than
mainline (lang/perl) would also be helpful I would think...

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list