From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 12 18:05:36 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 9F0CD106564A; Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:05:36 +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 2070D8FC1B; Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:05:36 +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 391541CC7B; Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:27:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by dns1.vizion2000.net (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id m6CIQuW2083813; Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:26:56 -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: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:26:56 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <200807100340.38399.david@vizion2000.net> <20080712092655.GA8371@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <200807120305.40066.david@vizion2000.net> In-Reply-To: <200807120305.40066.david@vizion2000.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200807121126.56725.david@vizion2000.net> Cc: Jeremy Chadwick , Remko Lodder , Anton Berezin 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: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:05:36 -0000 On Saturday 12 July 2008 03:05:39 David Southwell wrote: > On Saturday 12 July 2008 02:26:55 Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 02:29:06AM -0700, David Southwell wrote: > > > Here is a full and verbatim copy of my original posting that started > > > this thread. > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > Subject: portupgrade to Perl 5.10.0 ?? > > > From: David Southwell > > > To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > Just wondered when an upgrade to 5.10.0 could be expected. > > > > > > David > > > ___________________________________________ > > > > > > Are you seriously telling me you "understand" something "between the > > > lines" in that? > > > > > > Come on -- smile a little...and I hope you will find a more > > > constructive & creative use for magination than that!!! > > > > > > I do not think it is unreasonable to say the original posting was > > > straight forward and certainly cast no aspersions. The same thing > > > cannot be said of some responses. > > > > You simply want to know if the perl port being upgraded to 5.10 is in > > the works, and if there's any idea of when it will be completed. I > > think this is a reasonable request, open-source project or otherwise. > > > > > I wonder whether someone could endeavour to answer the original > > > question constructively rather than defensively. > > > > I'm not responsible for the perl port, so I can't speak for tobez@. > > > > If you're a generic developer who uses perl, and 5.10 offers you fixes > > or features you need, I can see how you might think the upgrade is > > simple. But I can tell you that upgrading perl is one of those > > "sensitive" things from a system administrator's perspective. > > > > The thing with perl is that the language has a history of minor > > revisions inducing "customer chaos" -- that is to say, you upgrade from > > 5.4 to 5.8 and suddenly you have a bunch of users filling your mailbox > > with "My script doesn't work any more!!! What did you do?" and "Why > > exactly did you upgrade to 5.8? The memory footprint is larger, and > > it's breaking on this third-party module I use, please revert..." > > Believe me, this actually happens, and I have witnessed it on multiple > > occasions at past jobs. > > > > Let's not forget that perl is a very large piece of the ports tree. > > There are 3150 ports that start with "p5-". What guarantee is there > > that every one works with 5.10? Sure, it's a matter of trial and error > > and waiting for users to submit PRs informing maintainers which piece > > doesn't work with 5.10, but that takes time -- time that one FreeBSD > > user may have, but another does not. > > > > Then there's the whole dependency thing. perl in recent days has been > > adding more and more modules to the base perl distribution; what used to > > be an add-on module is now included with perl, so ports have to be > > updated to be aware of that fact. > > > > When such a commit (e.g. 5.8 --> 5.10) hits the tree, users and ports > > maintainers will have to race to see what works and what doesn't. > > > > I'm not trying to justify what other people have told you, but you need > > to keep in mind that changes to the perl port can have dire > > repercussions -- treading lightly is an absolute necessity. > > > > Does this inadvertently answer your questions? :-) > > Not really. > > The information you give is valuable and will be helpful to those who do > not understand the complications. > > However you are not telling me anything I do not know - which w= as > why my original posting was phrased in a respectful and unloaded way. (My > first contact with Perl was during its early development stages so its > history is familiar to me.) > > I would have expected a reply that indicated progess and a genuine and > helpful attempt to indicate a best/worst scenario for an upgrade. > > I certainly do not expect to get of topic responses that cast aspersions, > including accusations of making demands or other replies that seem to be= =20 > so overly defensive that one wonders what emotions are driving the > contributors. > > Thanks for wading in > > David > > > I have now had a really helpful reply to a private email I sent to tobez. H= e=20 has given me permission to post it here; >From: Anton Berezin >To: David Southwell =20 >>On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 10:29:18AM -0700, David Southwell wrote: >> On Saturday 12 July 2008 09:58:06 you wrote: > > David, > > > > On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 02:52:55AM -0700, David Southwell wrote: > > > I do not know whether you are still responsible for maintaining perl = but > > > I thought it was appropriate to forward a copy of this to you. A few > > > people are showing signs of being a bit hot under the collar because a > > > question has been asked about Perl5.10.0. The thread has become a bit > > > fractious =A0and thought you might be in a position to cool it. > > > > I was postponing making the port first because of our extended freeze, = and > > after that for the (rather chronic) lack of time. =A0The basic port is = ready > > for quite a while, but I've been meaning to integrate quite a bit of > > patches I've got from people over time. =A0Some of it is done, some of = it is > > not there quite yet. =A0My estimation is that I need an uninterrupted h= alf a > > day to a day of time to finish the port so that it is usable and=20 reasonably > > bug-free. I've been going to do that "Real Soon Now" for more time than= I > > myself is comfortable with. > > > > Anyways, I am leaving for a one-week vacation tomorrow, so nothing is=20 going > > to happen during this time. =A0After that I'll seriously try not to pos= tpone > > it any longer. > > > > Cheers, > > \Anton. >=20 > Thanks anton for getting back to me. >=20 > To cool things down abit would you mind if I copied your reply to the lis= t?=20 Sure, if you think it's needed. =20 So now we know what is happening.. thank you tobez. David