> On Aug 12, 2014, at 10:22 AM, Daniel J. Luke <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Aug 12, 2014, at 11:19 AM, Ryan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> On Aug 12, 2014, at 10:15 AM, Daniel J. Luke <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I'm just saying, it's a /lot/ of effort to do this for p5.8-p5.20 ports >>> when it could be reduced (somewhat) by just working on p5.20... (and >>> deprecating/removing everything else). >> >> It seems to me an order of magnitude more effort to reduce everything to >> "one perl" right now. I foresee each module port needing to be manually >> edited, plus overhauling the perl5 portgroup. Mojca's current proposal only >> requires revbumping each port, which can be automated to some degree. > > that's pretty much why we're in the situation we are now - we just continue > with the current setup because it's 'easier'. Someone puts a bunch of effort > into making things work with a newer (but never the current) perl, and then > dev stops and we do the same dance later (but with even more perls).
Would you prefer we do nothing, until someone has the time to do the massive job you propose? I think it's better to continue making incremental improvements, until that day comes. _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
