Hi Matthias,
On 20/06/2026 13:43, Adolf Belka wrote:
Hallo Matthias,
Sorry for late reply. I am a bit tied up with other things that are keeping me
busy at the moment.
On 18/06/2026 13:56, Matthias Fischer wrote:
Hi all,
On 16.06.2026 13:49, Michael Tremer wrote:
No worries, I wasn’t particularly quick with my response.
What you sent looks good to me. I will reply to those emails once I review them.
No problem, take your time. But since I was warned that building could
be ok, but starting the firewall (e.g.) could run into errors, I set up
my - offline - testmachine and couldn't find any (starting) errors.
But: could 'someone' (Adolf(!?) ;-) ), install this build with this perl
update and test it *online*? I don't know if this makes a really *big*
difference, but I would feel better...
Yes, I will have a go at this but it might not be till the week after next.
I got some time to be able to have a go at this.
I took your update patches and applied them to a latest CU204 build set. That
went fine with just a couple of issues due to newer changes in CU204.
perl-netsnmpd has been updated so the patch for the PAK-VER update failed to
work and there is a new module perl-Encode-Locale. So I manually did the
changes for those two modules. The build then worked without any issues.
I then installed the iso created from that build. Everything looked fine so I
restored a CU202 backup. I then checked all the WUI pages with special focus on
all then ones that I am actively using. Everything worked as expected.
It all looks to be working fine to me.
Congratulations, Matthias, on a successful perl update. I think this should be
able to be put into CU204.
Regards,
Adolf.
Regards,
Adolf.
Best
Matthias
On 16 Jun 2026, at 12:47, Matthias Fischer <[email protected]> wrote:
On 16.06.2026 13:20, Michael Tremer wrote:
Hello Matthias,
Hi Michael,
Yes, this is a bug update because there are plenty of modules built after the
main package.
The best way would be to update them one by one - i.e. commit them one by one.
But since this is a lot, I would be happy to listen to any other proposals.
Ups. Just saw your mail - a few seconds after I pushed the whole thing,
sorry.
Take a look and decide - its really huge... ;-)
Best
Matthias
Best,
-Michael
On 14 Jun 2026, at 22:04, Matthias Fischer <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
On 12.06.2026 13:19, Adolf Belka wrote:
...
Feel free to do so but maybe you should also look at updating the perl package
itself.
...
I did. But I'm not quite sure what to do next and need a hint.
After "a few" rootfile-adjustments I got a build based on 'next' with
'perl 5.42.2' that is building without any errors. No seen problems.
Adjusting the rootfile for the new perl version was a bit...extensive,
but I think I managed it. Build is running without any errors.
But there are about 70 rootfiles from 'common' to 'packages' who thought
they were all alone now and wanted to come along. They all contained the
perl version string '5.36.0', which now had to be changed to 5.42.2.
I think I need to push these files together with the actual perl update.
This will take some place for an update... Since this is my first perl
update I was a bit surprised how many files were affected.
Would this be ok? Updating perl leads to about ~70 files that need to be
updated too and pushed because of changed rootfiles?
Best
Matthias
