Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:21:48 +0200 From: John Marino <freebsdml@marino.st> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Rebuild all ports for perl minor version update? Message-ID: <51BAFCCC.9090708@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <20130614064003.55745320@scorpio> References: <88415.98533.bm@smtp104.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <51BAD1D7.5020500@marino.st> <20130614054941.66ea1913@scorpio> <20130614101017.GI44980@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20130614064003.55745320@scorpio>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/14/2013 12:40, Jerry wrote: > Just so I am understanding this correctly, the problem is not with > Perl-5.18, but rather applications that were written for earlier > versions that may not have in fact been written in tight compliance > with the specifications of the earlier versions and those problems seem > to reside on *BSD platforms more readily than other OSs. Is that a fair > statement? I don't think that's a fair statement. First, where is your support your statement that the broken applications didn't have "tight compliance with the specifications"? That sounds like conjecture. I also don't see how you make the leap that BSD has more problems than other architectures. > In my opinion, rather than just issuing a blanket embargo of the newer > version, I would think that issuing a warning of its potential > problems, (and I do stress the use of POTENTIAL as opposed to > GUARANTEED ramifications) to be a more suitable solution to the > situation. Users would be free to make their own decisions. Unless the > intent is to lock *.BSD into versions < 5.18 ad infinitum, at some > point the action must be taken anyway. I despise languages that aren't backwards compatible, so if 5.18 actually broke compatibility intentionally then I for one would vote for staying on 5.16 for a long, long time. I am reserving judgement for the full story. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51BAFCCC.9090708>