On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 10:38 PM, David Evans wrote: > On 12/12/14 11:54 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>> On Dec 12, 2014, at 8:49 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> @@ -1,10 +1,13 @@ >>> # -*- coding: utf-8; mode: tcl; tab-width: 4; indent-tabs-mode: nil; >>> c-basic-offset: 4 -*- vim:fenc=utf-8:ft=tcl:et:sw=4:ts=4:sts=4 >>> # $Id$ >>> +# Port is broken: >>> +# - http://trac.macports.org/ticket/33479 >>> + >>> PortSystem 1.0 >>> PortGroup perl5 1.0 >>> -perl5.branches 5.10 5.12 5.14 5.16 >>> +perl5.branches 5.10 5.12 5.14 5.16 5.18 5.20 >> >> I don't understand this change. If we're adding perl branches without >> testing that they work, then let's just do that for all the remaining perl >> module ports all at once, as was suggested in months past. I had wanted to >> avoid that, because I like our standing policy of verifying that a port >> builds before committing a change. If we're not going to do that here, then >> there's no reason to do each port separately. > > I agree with Ryan. While it would be easy to do a bulk change on the > remaining ports that do not support 5.18 5.20, if a known issue exists with > a particular port then it should be fixed before making the update.
I'm sorry for this change, but I have another question. Assuming that all the working ports have been taken care of: what would you do with completely broken ports (that is: ports where p5.16-foo is just as broken as p5.20-foo)? Obviously we are not removing the existing broken variants. (I removed broken variants 5.8-5.14 in p5-wx for example, but there 5.16 worked just fine.) Mojca _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
