On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 09:58:08AM -0400, Bill Cole <macportsusers-20171...@billmail.scconsult.com> wrote:
> On 2023-06-20 at 03:11:46 UTC-0400 (Tue, 20 Jun 2023 17:11:46 +1000) > raf via macports-users <macpo...@raf.org> > is rumored to have said: > > > Hi. All of the p5-* perl module ports have: > > > > perl5.branches 5.28 5.30 5.32 5.34 > > > > Why is that? There's a perl5.36 port, > > and there are perl5.16-perl5.26 ports. > > > > I'm curious. I was expecting to see a branch > > for all available versions of perl5. > > Not all modules are compatible with all Perl versions. Not all ports are > maintained diligently, so when a new version of Perl is a available, not > all ports get updated immediately. > > Sometimes it's just a formality. For example, Mail::SpamAssassin v4.0.0 was > released before Perl 5.36 and so none of us on the SA dev team tested it > with 5.36. We do not claim that it works with 5.36, although we expect that > it will. Some packagers are very picky about such things. > > Historically, Mojca has been the SME and the most heroic heavy-lifter in > keeping MacPorts' Perl jungle usable. > > -- > Bill Cole > b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org > (AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses) > Not Currently Available For Hire Thanks. That probably also explains why the current default perl version is still 5.34. 5.36 is only a year old. I expect that the missing earlier versions are probably an effort to encourage people to keep upgrading outdated ports, or maybe just to save space on mirrors. And yes, Mojca is a hero. There are about 1500 perl module ports with "nomaintainer", but I bet that Mojca is the maintainer that they don't have. :-) cheers, raf