On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:58:18 Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Le Sun, Jul 16, 2000 at 10:35:17AM -0400, Fred Reimer écrivait: > > Wow! I'm only getting 6.4KB/s download from daft.com where I get over > > 240KB/s from the official Debian sites. If you want any level of > > testing for this new version of Perl then I'd suggest you move it to > > unstable ASAP. I doubt the majority of people using unstable will be > > That's a pretty stupid remark. Move it to unstable right now if you want > to have a nightmare ... you should'nt move it to unstable until you > have a responsible that is willing to coordinate the upgrade. It would > be even better, if we could setup a staging area...
I wouldn't call it a stupid remark. Although I wouldn't label it flamebait, it was meant to entice those responsible for maintaining Perl in Debian to reveal their plan and schedule for getting it done. I'd call it more uninformed that "stupid." I'm sorry. I was obviously under the impression that there WAS someone responsible for the integration of Perl into Debian. I did not know that every time there was a new Perl upgrade someone new needed to be found and designated the point person for coordinating the upgrade in Debian. > And for the time it takes downloading a package, if you can't wait 30 > minutes for the download, I doubt you can afford the time to test the > package... Extensive testing? Yes, you are probably right. But I do report issues and even patches from time to time for various projects. No, I haven't made any to Debian yet, but I'm not against the idea either. > BTW, many people are working on Debian with a single modem connection > so we have no other choice than waiting the download. My comments were not meant to flaunt my cable connection. They were to make the statement that much faster sites are available that would be glad to host the files. I'm really at a loss on how to express myself here. What's so difficult to understand the desire to see Perl at a somewhat recent level in the unstable tree? Everyone knows that it's probably going to be quite a long time before the unstable tree makes it to stable. Other packages are updated and maintained at a more recent level. XFree86-4.0.1 is supposed to be coming out Real Soon Now. (Sure, there wasn't a 4.0 version, but there were significant issues with that release. I'm not aware of any significant issues with Perl 5.6) PostgreSQL is at 7.0.2, which was released on 6/6/2000 (7.0 on 5/9/2000), much later than Perl 5.6 which was released on 3/23/2000. So what's the problem? Yes, I admit. I'm whining and complaining without doing the job myself because I don't have time to do the job (nor the experience with making Debian packages, although I've installed various versions of Perl on various OS's tens of times). Honestly, what would satisfy me would be a statement on the direction of Perl in Debian, when it is planned to be upgraded to 5.6, what version it will likely go in, etc. That would give me, and many others, enough information to make the decisions we need to make. Hopefully I've made myself clear about what I'm after here. I thought that Perl 5.6 was just about ready to be put in unstable if I just waited another week or two. Now I'm hearing that that would be a "nightmare." All I want is a timeframe on when it's going to be done. Are we looking at next month? In the Fall (which I suppose is Spring for those down under)? Anytime this year? Will it go into the version of Debian that is now Unstable, or are we looking at another year before this critical tool, for me, is available in an official distribution? Fred Reimer
