I'm all for doing what we need to do. I use a lot of perl, and I have always tried to install the latest or close to latest. Back before we had the perl5 port I had a perl script that read every port file and essentially did this: s/perl5.8/perl5.12/ - so I'm a big fan of having the latest available.
I'm also willing to help with whatever we need to fix. Sometimes, I think I'm the last Perl fan around, as everyone ditches me for Python, which to be fair, I also use. —Mark _______________________ Mark E. Anderson <[email protected]> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Jeremy Lavergne <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I’m not sure that making more work is really something we want to do. > > > > Right. But I’m not sure what course of action you’re advocating with > that sentence. > > Introducing another perl5 variant means that’s another set of ports and > their variants we need to clean up if we were to switch to perl_select. We > would end up undoing anything new we add for perl variants. > > It would be less wasted effort to start converting things to perl_select > if that’s our end game, but it remains unclear if perl_select is the end > game—at least how i’m reading all our perl threads. > > > Yes, but the OP was asking how to make “perl” be “perl5.18”. That’s the > kind of thing that “port select” is supposed to be for, except that it > would conflict with files from the “perl5” port. I don’t think we can > suggest people use “port select” for perl until the old perl5 port and all > references to it have been removed. > > Hence why the above is “more work” because if we added the variant we’d > have to go back and remove it again later. If you really think it’s not > that big of a problem, then it should be added. I just fear this is another > instance where we continue "kicking the can down the road". > > > The other option Daniel advocates is going back to a single perl. That > would involve even more work, finding all ports that depend on perl5.x or > any p5.x module, changing them to the one true perl, and also rewriting the > perl5 portgroup again and all p5 ports and revbumping all of them. > > It would definitely make perl life much easier in the long run. Any of our > actual perl users should chime in on this one, or if we were using > statistics we’d know roughly how many users are using our “non-default” > perls. > > > That’s why I proposed the very simple 3-line solution of adding a > perl5_18 variant to the perl5 port until we decide which way we want to go. > > Yes, but I suspect we won’t be deciding after we add this 3-line solution. > I’d rather we hammer out our plan than put in an easy temporary fix as > there is then less emphasis on what needs to be done. > > I’m just really concerned that MacPorts will continue to sit without > making changes. > > _______________________________________________ > macports-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users >
_______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
