On Aug 14, 2014, at 9:45 AM, Ryan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote:

> If we aren't quite ready to tackle "one perl" yet, we could still improve the 
> situation slightly by removing all p5.8 and p5.10 modules. We wouldn't have 
> to bother fixing some perl 5.8- and 5.10-specific issues, and it would be 
> fewer subports for maintainers to test and for buildslaves to build.
> 
> Check my work, but it looks like there aren't any ports that depend on p5.8 
> or p5.10 versions of modules (other than other p5.8 and p5.10 modules of 
> course):
> 
> $ port echo depends:p5.8 and not name:^p5.8
> $ port echo depends:p5.10 and not name:^p5.10
> $
> 
> The question is how should we go about that. It would be straightforward to 
> just remove 5.8 and 5.10 everywhere it is found in a perl5.branches line, but 
> if any users still have those old modules installed, they would never receive 
> notification that they should upgrade to newer perl versions to continue to 
> receive updates. This is the de facto solution we are using for python 
> modules as well. It might be cleaner to use the replaced_by mechanism to 
> replace these older modules with newer counterparts, but that would be more 
> work. Thoughts on whether that's necessary?
> 
> 
> Later we could remove perl5.8 and perl5.10, though at present some ports 
> still depend on them:
> 
> $ port echo depends:perl5.8 and not name:^p5.8
> subversion-perlbindings-5.8     
> rpm                             
> rpm45                           
> rpm50                           
> rpm51                           
> rpm52                           
> rpm53                           
> $ port echo depends:perl5.10 and not name:^p5.10
> subversion-perlbindings-5.10    
> $

I totally agree that we should remove perl 5.8 and 5.10 as soon as reasonably 
possible. 

The rpm53 port already has a perl5_12 variant that can be used. These ports 
appear very out of date and I doubt anyone uses them. rpm53 also depends on 
python25! I believe all the RPM ports below rpm53 should be removed. We could 
ping the maintainers (CC’ed to this email). 

Anders, n3npq: Any thoughts on this?


Cheers!
Frank

_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev

Reply via email to