pypi2port (was: Perl changes)

[Mojca Miklavec]

Hi,

in the spirit of this discussion:

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Aug 12, 2014, at 5:25 PM, Dan Ports wrote:
>>
>> Longer-term, we need to decide whether to go to a single perl.
>> Personally, I'm in favor of this. But it's clearly going to involve a
>> lot of work (even if it'll save us more in the long run) so we
>> shouldn't let that stop us from doing this now.
>
> I don't think it's really any more work than what is going on now. The hardest thing will be trying to make the transition work well for people (and maybe we just can't make it nice? - changes to default perl5 are already not picked up by installs, so people have to do manual work to get their install using a newer perl5).
>
> A reasonable interim goal state would be:
> 1. perl5 port installs the current perl5 (which is 5.20.0 right now)
> 2. p5 ports install like they used to (perl5 portgroup doesn't make versioned p5.xx modules anymore)
> 3. ports depend on p5-xxx or the perl5 port
>
> To me, it makes sense to figure out a plan on how we get to that state, and not spend a lot of time making keeping the currently broken situation mostly working.

... I would rather suggest to concentrate the effort on reviewing the
work done for the pip2port
(http://trac.macports.org/browser/branches/gsoc14-pip2port) where we
*do* have someone actively working on it (even though the work is
probably approaching to the end).

I didn't look into it yet, but if we suddenly get a zillion of new
python modules included, we'll slowly start facing exactly the same
problems there.

I would love to see python and perl being treated in the same (or at
least in a similar) way.

Anyway, forgetting the discussion about Perl (it's not really related
to pypi2port after all): reviewing the work done on the Python front
would certainly be very very welcome at this point.

Mojca