Perl version in -STABLE

Doug Barton DougB at FreeBSD.org
Fri May 16 00:29:54 PDT 2003


On Thu, 15 May 2003, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:

> [bcc: to re@]
>
> Considering the amount of changes between 4.x and 5.x, and the
> performance issues of the latter, I think I can safely predict that
> RELENG_4 will be around for a long time after the RELENG_5 branch.

Agreed.

> While I understand that some will resist making RELENG_4 any more
> useful than it currently is (to encourage users to move to 5.x), I
> think there is one issue that should be addressed: the in-tree version
> of Perl.  -STABLE currently has 5.005_03, which is four years old and
> noticeably incompatible with newer versions in at least some respects;
> the most common stumbling block in my experience being the new, safer
> syntax for open(), which 5.005_03 does not support.

Let's not lose track of the fact that for most things, 5.005_03 works
perfectly fine. The fact that the "latest and greatest" of everything
doesn't always work with it is simply a sign of the growing influence of
the bleeding edge linux folks on open source development. I spend a
non-trivial amount of time on my perl-affected ports making sure that they
still work with 5.005_03, and generally the changes necessary are quite
small.

> "Install Perl from ports" is not a good answer unless we decide here
> and now to remove Perl completely from -STABLE.  Otherwise, we are
> practically guaranteed that a certain percentage of RELENG_4 users
> (more and more as time goes on and 5.005_03 becomes even more
> antiquated) will consistently forget to build world with NOPERL.

Personally, I don't think our users are that stupid, especially the ones
that really depend on perl. Also, the "damage" done by an installworld
that includes perl is quite easily undone.

I also think that this change would break faith with those users of
RELENG_4 that were promised that the perl in that branch would never be
upgraded. We don't even HAVE a 5.005_03 port, so those who depend on it
would be left in the dust.

I vigorously oppose this plan.

Doug

-- 

    This .signature sanitized for your protection


More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list