On Jan 13,2003 15:44:15 -0600, Chris Dolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : >On Sunday, January 12, 2003, at 09:33 PM, Kyle Moffett wrote: >> On Sunday, Jan 12, 2003, at 20:34 US/Eastern, Carsten Klapp wrote: >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> Aside from these directory name issues I have a start on some perl >>> 5.8 info files based on a perl 5.8 info file from the submission >>> tracker. The modules I found so far which need to be recompiled >>> simply have a new info file identical to the old one but with a >>> build/depends on the new perl. Take a look in the >>> experimental/carstenklapp cvs dir. >> Some modules are 100% perl code, and for the most part they can be >> built and installed in the 5.6.0 and 5.8.0 directories without >> changes. (IE only install destination command is changed) For these >> modules we just copy the files between 5.6.0 and 5.8.0 dirs. > >I have a few questions: > * How will this work with dependency tracking? Will those pure-perl >modules depend > only on perl >= 5.6.0 instead of perl = 5.6.0 and perl = 5.8.0?
As I see it, the main issue is BuildDepends, i.e., making sure that the correct version of perl is or is not installed when you build the Fink package. Once the package is built, with the module squirreled away in various version-specific directories, it really won't matter which version of perl is installed at the time you install the package. Whichever version of perl you run will look in the correct directory to locate packages compatible with it. > * What happens when 5.8.1 comes out? Will those be multi-version >packages be revised > to add files to another version dir? What if the 5.8.1 revision of >a module ceases > to support 5.6.0? (not likely, I admit) Sure, as with any new version, it will be up to maintainers to modify their packages once things have been tested against the new perl. > * How do I remove the 5.6.0 cruft someday without nuking my 5.8.0 >modules? Probably you can't in the context of Fink, unless at some point we decide to completely stop supporting 5.6.0 in Fink. > * What if a future version of a given module switches from pure-perl >to XS for speed's > sake? I guess the splitoff mechanism supports this point... > Sure, the maintainer would need to revise the package to build various versions instead. >>> It is my understanding that not all perl modules need to be >>> recompiled for 5.8, only binary XS modules. (I really don't know what >>> XS means and I have no idea how to tell if a module works or not >>> without recompiling unless there is an error using it). Anyway this >>> would mean a lot of the perl mods in fink should still work with the >>> new perl without needing a recompile. >> Any module that compiles C or C++ code should be considered XS (There >> may be one or two that aren't, but those are the minority) Otherwise, >> unless specified by the module author, it should work on both > versions. >> > >As reported by "perldoc perlhist", there have been 4 binary >incompatible Perl releases since July 1998: 5.005 (7/1998), 5.6.0 >(3/2000), 5.6.1 (4/2001), and 5.8.0 (7/2002). I think one release per >year is not too steep for module maintainers (flame me if this is naive >-- I only maintain one package right now!). Especially if we start >dropping the old ones, or decide to not support 5.6.1. > Actually, I think we should leave 5.6.0 to the Apple-installed one, continue to supply perl modules for it, but include both perl-5.6.1 and perl-5.8.0 in Fink. Lots of folks are leery of the .0 versions and would love to be able to use 5.6.1 until 5.8.1 comes out (or even later). -- Dave ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: FREE SSL Guide from Thawte are you planning your Web Server Security? Click here to get a FREE Thawte SSL guide and find the answers to all your SSL security issues. http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0026en _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
