On Mon, Dec 26, 2022 at 5:38 PM Russ Allbery <[email protected]> wrote:
> Leon Timmermans <[email protected]> writes:
> > That said, I would really appreciate it if in the future people would
> > talk a bit more with their upstreams when incrementing their perl
> > dependency; this could easily have been not so easy to work around.
>
> Is there a forum in which this sort of conversation takes place? I would
> be happy to have this discussion; I just don't know where to do it. Maybe
> perl5-porters, which I haven't been subscribed to for some years (although
> I send release notifications here) because it used to be super-high
> volume, but maybe it's not any more?
>
I guess p5p would have been the most obvious place to have this discussion
in this particular case. Toolchain doesn't really do email for some reason.
> Anyway, the reason why I thought this was safe is because Pod::Man is part
> of Perl core, so it's always available. I assume the problem is that
> Module::Build is requesting a later version than what comes with Perl in
> 5.8 (for Unicode support), and CPAN doesn't have the same support that
> PyPI has for providing multiple versions and being able to fall back on an
> older version if the newer version doesn't meet available constraints
> (such as not supporting the current version of Perl)?
>
Yeah, I can see where that assumption comes from.
> In the future, I would like to be able to use the package NAMESPACE VERSION
> syntax instead of $VERSION and the $foo->@* syntax instead of @{ $foo },
> so eventually it would be nice to require Perl 5.024 or later, although I
> know that's much too aggressive at the moment.
>
There's an interesting conundrum there. If the toolchain doesn't depend on
any new functionality you're not constrained there, but that also means
that any such new functionality goes largely unused.
Leon
