On Sat, 9 May 2009 08:31:45 -0500 (CDT) Lars Eighner <luvbeas...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 9 May 2009, Jos Chrispijn wrote: > >> Lars Eighner wrote: >>> On Sat, 9 May 2009, Jos Chrispijn wrote: >>> >>> You must be new around here. >> Yes, I am L-) >>> The process described in UPDATING for upgrading to Perl 5.10 is >>> relatively painless compared to previous perl upgrades. So much >>> stuff depends upon perl that: >> [snip] >> >> Do you recommend having Perl updated or should I stay with 5.8? > >Unless you know there is something in 5.10 that you need now, I >recommend waiting at least a little bit. Let the >gotta-have-the-newest-shiny folks take the sharp edges off. Study the >dependencies list from pkg_info and dependencies of any big thing you >plan to install. If you are going to (re-)build something big or a >lot of little things anyway, it may make sense to upgrade perl just >before you do that so that rebuilding the ports that depend on perl >will kill two birds with one stone. If such an opportunity doesn't >arise, maybe do it anyway about the time of the first frost --- >snuggle up in front of the blazing compiler and sip hot chocolate. Perl-5.10 was released to the public over a year ago. Another year transpired before it was released into the ports system. There was an immediate problem that was corrected when the maintainer switched to 'bison' from 'YACC'. Other than that, it has performed flawlessly as far as I can tell. -- Jerry ges...@yahoo.com The Martian Canals were clearly the Martian's last ditch effort!
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
