From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 11 21:28:25 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9712F1065682; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:28:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from david@vizion2000.net) Received: from dns1.vizion2000.net (77-99-36-42.cable.ubr04.chap.blueyonder.co.uk [77.99.36.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A4718FC15; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:28:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from david@vizion2000.net) Received: from dns1.vizion2000.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dns1.vizion2000.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E79121CC8A; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:49:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by dns1.vizion2000.net (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id m6BLntTr048082; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:49:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from david@vizion2000.net) X-Authentication-Warning: dns1.vizion2000.net: david set sender to david@vizion2000.net using -f From: David Southwell Organization: Voice and Vision To: Remko Lodder Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:49:55 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <200807100340.38399.david@vizion2000.net> <200807111403.11021.david@vizion2000.net> <4877CA51.1060001@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4877CA51.1060001@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200807111449.55648.david@vizion2000.net> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupgrade to Perl 5.10.0 ?? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:28:25 -0000 On Friday 11 July 2008 14:02:09 Remko Lodder wrote: > David Southwell wrote: > > On Friday 11 July 2008 11:53:50 you wrote: > >> David Southwell wrote: > >>> If we had to argue for every port on these terms everyone would spend > >>> their time arguing and we would have none atall. > >>> > >>> It is not as though Perl is an obscure bit of buggy code that none > >>> uses. > >>> > >>> If there is a request then simply a response to your last question is > >>> needed. > >>> > >>> Enough > >>> > >>> david. > >> > >> So, when can I expect your updated work on the port, build all > >> dependencies to make sure they keep on working etc? I understand that we > >> want to have this as soon as possible, but also do keep in mind that we > >> would like to make sure as much as possible that the code can actually > >> work. I am not aware of the reason for this taking longer then some of > >> you expect. But I am sure that there is a reason. It all remains > >> volunteer work and people might choose to do different things then > >> satisfy your specific need. Not that I am saying we shouldnt do it, but > >> I am stating that there is more then just your wish. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> remko > > > > This started because I asked a simple question. Is there a possibility of > > getting perl 5.10.0 and when. I did not expect the third degree > > > > > > Admittedly I am curious why it is taking six months when most ports do > > not take that long - but curiosity does not imply personal antagonism, > > criticsm or sarcasm. > > Thanks > > > > david > > It also doesn't imply that you can "demand" that people import 5.10.0 > because you want it, need it or whatever. It does mean that probably > work is underway but that it stalled or something for a reason. > > "thanks" > remko I have hear no demand from anyone only reasonable curiosity following six months delay. It is: 1. reasonable to ask when 2. Courteous to give a reply. David David