Hi, in the spirit of this discussion:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > On Aug 12, 2014, at 5:25 PM, Dan Ports wrote: >> >> Longer-term, we need to decide whether to go to a single perl. >> Personally, I'm in favor of this. But it's clearly going to involve a >> lot of work (even if it'll save us more in the long run) so we >> shouldn't let that stop us from doing this now. > > I don't think it's really any more work than what is going on now. The > hardest thing will be trying to make the transition work well for people (and > maybe we just can't make it nice? - changes to default perl5 are already not > picked up by installs, so people have to do manual work to get their install > using a newer perl5). > > A reasonable interim goal state would be: > 1. perl5 port installs the current perl5 (which is 5.20.0 right now) > 2. p5 ports install like they used to (perl5 portgroup doesn't make versioned > p5.xx modules anymore) > 3. ports depend on p5-xxx or the perl5 port > > To me, it makes sense to figure out a plan on how we get to that state, and > not spend a lot of time making keeping the currently broken situation mostly > working. ... I would rather suggest to concentrate the effort on reviewing the work done for the pip2port (http://trac.macports.org/browser/branches/gsoc14-pip2port) where we *do* have someone actively working on it (even though the work is probably approaching to the end). I didn't look into it yet, but if we suddenly get a zillion of new python modules included, we'll slowly start facing exactly the same problems there. I would love to see python and perl being treated in the same (or at least in a similar) way. Anyway, forgetting the discussion about Perl (it's not really related to pypi2port after all): reviewing the work done on the Python front would certainly be very very welcome at this point. Mojca _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
