On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Jonas Karlsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:26:34 +0100, Michael Homer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 2:02 AM, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Getting svk to play nicely forced me to revise things with how Perl
> >> was configured. I was annoyed about having to rebuild my modules every
> >> time I made a bugfix upgrade of perl as well. For example sitelib for
> >> Perl 5.8.8 was configured as $target/lib/perl5/site_lib/5.8.8, but
> >> first I wanted to change it to point at /S/L/L, which was no problem,
> >> but is it ok to drop $version for the path, e.g. setting sitelib to
> >> $goboLibraries/perl5/site_lib? How is binary compability between minor
> >> releases, 5.8 -> 5.10 for modules?
> > There is no binary compatibility, and there isn't necessarily source
> > compatibility (new keywords, etc).
>
> No binary compability as it will break? I can't find any such information
> on the Perl website. Some modules have C source that is built and as I
> understood it, those are the ones you risk to break.
I don't think that it's intentionally broken, there's just no effort
to keep it compatible
> The pure Perl modules only break if keywords are *removed*, right?
No, they can break either way - if you have a subroutine defined with
the same name as a new keyword, it will break. I don't think that'd be
common at all, and in any case there'd certainly be a module upgrade
to go with it and fix the problem.
> > It's probably reasonably safe to
> > do, so long as there's awareness that binaries may need recompilation
> > after an upgrade. Reinstalling source modules shouldn't be necessary
> > except in very rare cases.
>
> Ok, so use the normal Shared/Perl/Recompile mechanism for modules with
> files in C then and this is not necessary for source only modules?
Should be the case. Probably not even necessary to recompile all the
time, but it might not be possible to tell when it would be (other
than seeing whether things have broken), so it seems reasonable.
$goboLibraries/perl5/site_lib/5.x should be almost always fine, and
$goboLibraries/perl5/site_lib would probably work too. /S/Aliens will
move some of that off onto CPAN's shoulders as well.
> > Not using svk wouldn't really address the root issue here. We still
> > need to have it available if someone does want it, and it's exposing a
> > lower-level problem.
>
> There's no problem using svk in either of those cases and this wasn't
> the question. It was just an opener I used. The question was that if
> '5.8.8' could be dropped from paths like sitelib or, if that's not
> possible, a compromise of using '5.8' and '5.10' respectively is
> possible.
That part was in response to the other message.
-Michael
_______________________________________________
gobolinux-devel mailing list
gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org
http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
