David Evans devans at
Fri Jul 18 16:15:58 PDT 2014

On 7/18/14 3:47 PM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 12:21 AM, David Evans wrote:
>> I suggest you put it back the way it was for now so that all the perl
>> versions work
>> the same.  I think that's what the port group is expecting.
> My idea was to test whether we could make it work this way with
> perl5.20 *before* we add thousand new sub-ports. If there would be no
> problems, I would prefer to make the same change on all other perl
> versions later (unless someone comes with a complete new scheme before
> that).
> Such kind of experiments are basically impossible to do on 5.16 where
> most users depend on those ports. And one would need to revbump more
> than 1000 ports for every failed experiment.
> I see 5.20 as an excellent opportunity to test these kind of things.
> Unless someone really urgently needs prel5.20 modules, let's give it
> at least a tiny bit more time to try to figure it out. (I will
> probably be offline until Monday though.) Nobody raised a complaint
> for a month, so it can probably wait a few more days.
> Mojca
Well, I'm sorry but I don't really see the need for these experiments.
But I'm probably being dense.

What's the benefit of the change/the problem with the previous system.
Why is a change necessary/desireable?

Why can't the experiments be done in your test environment rather than with
live ports?

As you say this is currently a minor inconvenience so I'll review your
posts over the weekend and perhaps the light will dawn.

But I do point out that perl 5.20 is the current stable release and the
fact that
we don't have many ports there seems to put us behind the power curve.

Have a nice weekend.


More information about the macports-dev mailing list