RFC: inverting @INC for perl5.{8,10}

Daniel J. Luke dluke at geeklair.net
Wed Apr 23 22:11:21 PDT 2008

On Apr 16, 2008, at 3:13 PM, Eric Hall wrote:
> 	I don't know what negative impacts this has (I can imagine
> problems with core modules expecting to get an older version of
> another modules, dunno if that's a real problem or not),

That's the only problem I can think of.

> and
> I'd expect this would be exposed in FreeBSD if it is a real-world
> problem.

Right, since FreeBSD does it this way, I think we're safe to at least  
try it.

> 	Anyone see any other problems with this idea, and/or
> reasons we should not do this?

I think this is a good change, we'll be able to get rid of the few  
ports that require being installed with force (and therefore mess  
things up when reinstalling/upgrading the perl port).

Daniel J. Luke
| *---------------- dluke at geeklair.net ----------------* |
| *-------------- http://www.geeklair.net -------------* |
|   Opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily   |
|          reflect the opinions of my employer.          |

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20080424/415bab7b/PGP.bin

More information about the macports-dev mailing list