From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 14 11:22:09 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A3069DA for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:22:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsdml@marino.st) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47C11145B for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:22:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.22] (unknown [130.255.16.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAA4943552 for ; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 06:21:58 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <51BAFCCC.9090708@marino.st> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:21:48 +0200 From: John Marino User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Rebuild all ports for perl minor version update? 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> In-Reply-To: <20130614064003.55745320@scorpio> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:22:09 -0000 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