At 2:01 AM -0800 11/14/02, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002, Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote:
Why can't someone with a fresh stable do an ls -R /
And someone with a fresh current do the same?
Because that's only part of the story. What about people updating
from other supported "source
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 06:01:46AM +1100, Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote:
> Why can't someone with a fresh stable do an ls -R /
> And someone with a fresh current do the same?
Because that's only part of the story. What about people updating
from other supported "source upgrade" versions (4.0, 4.1,
t, to look at
the issue that started this thread:
enigma# make -V BUILD_DEPENDS
perl5.6.1:/usr/ports/lang/perl5
However 5.0 has perl5.6.1 in the base system still, so
this dependency is always satisfied, the perl port is
never added and the port build that relies on it will fail.
[Doe
+---[ Garance A Drosihn ]--
| At 10:58 PM + 11/12/02, Mark Murray wrote:
| > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 08:15:09AM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
| >>
| >> > I would rather have some explicit list of filenames where we have
| >> > good reason to delete them, and then ada
> >Anyone have a trash-box that we can do a 4-STABLE --> 5-CURRENT
> >upgrade on to diff the file list?
> >
> >I have a box that I'd rather not trash, but if need be I'll use that.
>
> This is what I am planning to do. I am a little short on free time
> right now, what is the "timetable for need"
> Where are we with making lang/perl5's package default selected in
> sysinstall?
We are discussing it under your excellent chairmanship :-).
> While I've been opposed to the inclusion of the wrapper since before it
> was imported, I think its removal would be well accompanied by the
> sysinstall
On (2002/11/12 22:17), Doug Barton wrote:
> In case another vote is needed, I've always been opposed to the wrapper.
> tobez and I put some work into getting the use.perl script in the port
> to DTRT shortly after the demise of base perl, and I'm still willing to
> help fine tune it if needed.
I
David O'Brien wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:58:44AM +, Mark Murray wrote:
> > IMVHO, the perl wrapper should be removed altogether, and the
> > perl port's "use.port" symlink-creating feature should be used
> > instead.
>
> Do we have consensus on this? The perl wrapper really isn't
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 10:58:12PM +, Mark Murray wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 08:15:09AM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> >
> > > I would rather have some explicit list of filenames where we have
> > > good reason to delete them, and then adapt the above script to at
> > > least tell t
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 08:15:09AM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>
> > I would rather have some explicit list of filenames where we have
> > good reason to delete them, and then adapt the above script to at
> > least tell the user about the remaining files. Perhaps even delete
> > them, but o
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 08:15:09AM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> I would rather have some explicit list of filenames where we have
> good reason to delete them, and then adapt the above script to at
> least tell the user about the remaining files. Perhaps even delete
> them, but only *after*
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:34:23PM +, Mark Murray wrote:
> > > Do we have consensus on this? The perl wrapper really isn't working out
> > > for all the cases I hoped it would when I committed it.
> >
> > Yes, I think so. DES (The author?) doesn't mind. I'm for removal and so is
> > Kris.
>
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:34:23PM +, Mark Murray wrote:
> > Do we have consensus on this? The perl wrapper really isn't working out
> > for all the cases I hoped it would when I committed it.
>
> Yes, I think so. DES (The author?) doesn't mind. I'm for removal and so is
> Kris.
Why does DES
At 11:13 PM + 11/8/02, Mark Murray wrote:
> > I mean *all* the cruft -- old modules and config files,
> > deprecated binaries and man pages, even old shlibs if it's safe.
>
> I agree with you, and I was giving an example that a lesser
> form of this is already required during the upgrade.
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:58:44AM +, Mark Murray wrote:
> > IMVHO, the perl wrapper should be removed altogether, and the
> > perl port's "use.port" symlink-creating feature should be used
> > instead.
>
> Do we have consensus on this? The perl wrapper really isn't working out
> for all th
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:58:44AM +, Mark Murray wrote:
> IMVHO, the perl wrapper should be removed altogether, and the
> perl port's "use.port" symlink-creating feature should be used
> instead.
Do we have consensus on this? The perl wrapper really isn't working out
for all the cases I hope
> > I mean *all* the cruft -- old modules and config files, deprecated binaries
> > and man pages, even old shlibs if it's safe.
>
> I agree with you, and I was giving an example that a lesser form of
> this is already required during the upgrade.
>
> It would be VERY useful if someone could deve
Ray Kohler wrote:
> > Yes, it's already a mandatory step (remove old includes, or you can't
> > build C++ programs).
>
> I mean *all* the cruft -- old modules and config files, deprecated binaries
> and man pages, even old shlibs if it's safe.
You need a registration system which can subsume all
CTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 06:54:37AM -0500, Ray Kohler wrote:
> >
> > > Then we're back to the problem of there being a complete stale perl in
> > > the base syste
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 8 16:15:05 2002
> Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 13:02:58 -0800
> From: Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Ray Kohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
>
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 06:54:37AM -0500, Ray Kohler wrote:
> Then we're back to the problem of there being a complete stale perl in
> the base system after a 4.X->5.X upgrade, but then, I've always thought
> that "clean out the cruft" ought to be a mandatory step in upgrading.
Yes, it's already
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 8 04:15:04 2002
> To: Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
> Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:58:44 +
> From: Mark Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> IMVHO, the perl wrapper s
IMVHO, the perl wrapper should be removed altogether, and the
perl port's "use.port" symlink-creating feature should be used
instead.
M
> Can someone explain why the perl wrapper needs to be hardlinked to
> perl5.6.1?
>
> The problem I am seeing is this:
>
>
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 05:47:51PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Can someone explain why the perl wrapper needs to be hardlinked to
> perl5.6.1?
revision 1.5
date: 2002-06-07 18:55:42; author: obrien; state: Exp; lines: +1 -0
Install a "perl5.6.1" w
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 05:47:51PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Can someone explain why the perl wrapper needs to be hardlinked to
> perl5.6.1?
>
> The problem I am seeing is this:
>
> USE_PERL5=yes in a port adds the following BUILD_DEPENDS:
>
> enigma# make -V BUILD_
Can someone explain why the perl wrapper needs to be hardlinked to
perl5.6.1?
The problem I am seeing is this:
USE_PERL5=yes in a port adds the following BUILD_DEPENDS:
enigma# make -V BUILD_DEPENDS
perl5.6.1:/usr/ports/lang/perl5
However 5.0 has perl5.6.1 in the base system still, so this
> It would be nice to see this version of perl in -CURRENT. It would help
> ease the development of mod_perl-2.0 by not having to install the port
> and it just makes sense considering the bleeding-edge of the rest of the
> system.
Coming RSN. Maybe this weekend.
M
--
o Mark Murray
\_
Hi,
It would be nice to see this version of perl in -CURRENT. It would help
ease the development of mod_perl-2.0 by not having to install the port
and it just makes sense considering the bleeding-edge of the rest of the
system.
Thanks,
Pete...
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
28 matches
Mail list logo
