Re: building perl 5.6.0 with `-DPERL_POLLUTE'

2001-03-14 Thread Anton Berezin
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 08:43:11PM -, Jason R. Mastaler wrote: > I've noticed that lots of the perl ports are now broken since the move > to perl 5.6.0. Some examples: > > http://bento.freebsd.org/errorlogs/5-full/p5-Crypt-IDEA-1.01.log > http://bento.freebsd.org/error

Re: building perl 5.6.0 with `-DPERL_POLLUTE'

2001-03-14 Thread Alfred Perlstein
* Jason R. Mastaler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010314 12:43] wrote: > I've noticed that lots of the perl ports are now broken since the move > to perl 5.6.0. Some examples: > > http://bento.freebsd.org/errorlogs/5-full/p5-Crypt-IDEA-1.01.log > http://bento.freebsd.org/erro

building perl 5.6.0 with `-DPERL_POLLUTE'

2001-03-14 Thread Jason R. Mastaler
I've noticed that lots of the perl ports are now broken since the move to perl 5.6.0. Some examples: http://bento.freebsd.org/errorlogs/5-full/p5-Crypt-IDEA-1.01.log http://bento.freebsd.org/errorlogs/5-full/p5-Devel-Peek-0.96.log With these two in particular, the problem can be fix

CVS, -STABLE and perl 5.6.0

2000-09-11 Thread Angelo Turetta
y *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/perl/perl. Whereas (cd /usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/perl/perl; make) gave no errors, and allowed me to continue where I left with buildworld -DNOCLEAN. installworld failed too with: ===> gnu/usr.bin/perl/library install: /usr/libdata/perl/5.6.

Re: Perl 5.6.0 & pod2man & ports

2000-07-11 Thread John Polstra
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alexander Leidinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10 Jul, Will Andrews wrote: > > >> Only if ports-base isn't anymore in ports-all or my local CVS tree is > > > > ports-base was/has never [been] in ports-all, for some strange reason. > > Really? [...] > I read

Re: Perl 5.6.0 & pod2man & ports

2000-07-11 Thread Alexander Leidinger
On 10 Jul, Will Andrews wrote: >> Only if ports-base isn't anymore in ports-all or my local CVS tree is > > ports-base was/has never [been] in ports-all, for some strange reason. Really? /usr/share/examples/cvsup/ports-supfile: ---snip--- ## Ports Collection. # # The easiest way to get the por

Re: Perl 5.6.0 & pod2man & ports

2000-07-10 Thread Sheldon Hearn
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:44:08 EST, Ade Lovett wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 06:32:22PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > But you didn't update /usr/ports/Mk, did you? :-) > > This is nothing to do with parts of /usr/ports being out of date > and has already been mentioned on both -ports and -c

Re: Perl 5.6.0 & pod2man & ports

2000-07-10 Thread Will Andrews
On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 07:15:31PM +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Only if ports-base isn't anymore in ports-all or my local CVS tree is ports-base was/has never [been] in ports-all, for some strange reason. -- Will Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GCS/E/S @d- s+:+>+:- a--->+

Re: Perl 5.6.0 & pod2man & ports

2000-07-10 Thread Alexander Leidinger
On 10 Jul, Ade Lovett wrote: >> But you didn't update /usr/ports/Mk, did you? :-) Only if ports-base isn't anymore in ports-all or my local CVS tree is messed up. But you didn't do an »grep -i pod /usr/ports/Mk/*«, did you? :-) > This is nothing to do with parts of /usr/ports being out of date

Re: Perl 5.6.0 & pod2man & ports

2000-07-10 Thread Mark Murray
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 06:32:22PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > But you didn't update /usr/ports/Mk, did you? :-) > > This is nothing to do with parts of /usr/ports being out of date > and has already been mentioned on both -ports and -current. Will fix now... M -- Mark Murray Join the ant

Re: Perl 5.6.0 & pod2man & ports

2000-07-10 Thread Ade Lovett
On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 06:32:22PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > But you didn't update /usr/ports/Mk, did you? :-) This is nothing to do with parts of /usr/ports being out of date and has already been mentioned on both -ports and -current. >From my -current box, which is most definitely up to da

Re: Perl 5.6.0 & pod2man & ports

2000-07-10 Thread Sheldon Hearn
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:51:46 +0200, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > after the messages about the perl update have settled I decided to > update my perl-ports (p5-*), but I get a warning (the "echo $(PATH)" > below is inserted into the port Makefile by me). But you didn't update /usr/ports/Mk, did

Perl 5.6.0 & pod2man & ports

2000-07-10 Thread Alexander Leidinger
Hi, after the messages about the perl update have settled I decided to update my perl-ports (p5-*), but I get a warning (the "echo $(PATH)" below is inserted into the port Makefile by me). ---snip--- {0} [Magelan:/usr/ports/lang/p5-F77] (28) root@ttyp1# make configure ===> Extracting for p5-ExtU

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-09 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
> From: "Alexander N. Kabaev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I am perfectly aware of the way OpenBSD builds contrib software. I am just > making a point that they have found perl 5.6.0 is stable enough to be > included into their OS. Well, knowing the way they build

Re: Perl 5.6.0

2000-04-08 Thread Mark Murray
> I had some free time today so I started converting perl 5.6.0 to bmake. > So far, I've gotten libperl to build and plan to keep at the rest of it. > Given my schedule, it will probably take me another week to get the build > right and another week or so to test its integ

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-07 Thread Warner Losh
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Anton Berezin writes: : It is an issue of personal relationships and politics, not the technical : one. Tom Christiansen uses OpenBSD and advocates Perl to it (and other : way around). tchrist lives in Boulder, as does millert (Todd Miller) and the high tech commin

Perl 5.6.0

2000-04-07 Thread Keith Stevenson
Mark, I had some free time today so I started converting perl 5.6.0 to bmake. So far, I've gotten libperl to build and plan to keep at the rest of it. Given my schedule, it will probably take me another week to get the build right and another week or so to test its integration with

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-07 Thread Nick Hibma
. Nick On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Alexander N. Kabaev wrote: > According to OpenBSD ournal site, OpenBSD-current has perl 5.6.0 in it's source > tree already. > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the messag

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-07 Thread Sheldon Hearn
We want to update our system perl5. It'll take some work. If you want to do the work, your patches will be greatly appreciated by our perl5 maintainer, Mark Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Since nobody here has offered to do any _work_ on incorporating perl 5.6.0 into FreeBSD 5.0-CURR

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-07 Thread Anton Berezin
On Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 12:57:16AM -0400, Alexander N. Kabaev wrote: > I am perfectly aware of the way OpenBSD builds contrib software. I am > just making a point that they have found perl 5.6.0 is stable enough > to be included into their OS. It is an issue of personal relation

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-07 Thread Brad Knowles
At 12:57 AM -0400 2000/4/7, Alexander N. Kabaev wrote: > I am perfectly aware of the way OpenBSD builds contrib software. I am just > making a point that they have found perl 5.6.0 is stable enough to be > included into their OS. It's my understanding that we already

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-06 Thread patl
On 6-Apr-00 at 23:35, Kris Kennaway ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Thu, 6 Apr 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > You can't just make install in /usr/ports/lang/perl any more - there's > > a FORBIDDEN in there. > > Right, because we actually have a later version in the base system > (5.005_03 vs

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-06 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Thu, 6 Apr 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Including Perl in the make world build is something entirely different > > from doing a make install /usr/ports, I'm sure. > > You can't just make install in /usr/ports/lang/perl any more - there's > a FORBIDDEN in there. Right, because we actuall

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-06 Thread Warner Losh
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Kris Kennaway writes: : acceptable style for FreeBSD, not to mention probably breaking certain : features we support such as cross-compilation :-) One can almost cross compile OpenBSD. But the almost is due to the zillions of imported files that use the "native" b

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-06 Thread patl
On 3-Apr-00 at 02:56, Nick Hibma ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Are there actually any good reasons why we _should_ upgrade in the first > place? Security fixes, added functionality we require, etc. The perl we > have is stable and the problems it has are well known, which is good > enough in 99

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-06 Thread patl
On 3-Apr-00 at 10:09, Brad Knowles ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > At 11:59 AM -0400 2000/4/3, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote: > > > PERL is not just used by the FreeBSD system, it's also used by many > > applications ran on top of FreeBSD. Those applications are more likely > > to require an up-t

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-06 Thread Alexander N. Kabaev
I am perfectly aware of the way OpenBSD builds contrib software. I am just making a point that they have found perl 5.6.0 is stable enough to be included into their OS. On 07-Apr-00 Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Alexander N. Kabaev wrote: > >> According to OpenBSD

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-06 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Alexander N. Kabaev wrote: > According to OpenBSD ournal site, OpenBSD-current has perl 5.6.0 in it's source > tree already. OpenBSD don't even try to make their "bundled software" comply with the rest of the system build architecture - they basi

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-06 Thread Alexander N. Kabaev
According to OpenBSD ournal site, OpenBSD-current has perl 5.6.0 in it's source tree already. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-06 Thread Keith Stevenson
(cc-list pruned) On Thu, Apr 06, 2000 at 09:24:06AM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > My stupid question, though, is why is this such a big issue? Would it be > too hard to extend our /usr/src build process so that it is smart enough > to do an install out of ports, and just build the port

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-06 Thread Edwin Mons
The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Doug Barton wrote: > > > Christopher Masto wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:52:13AM +0100, Nick Hibma wrote: > > > > Are there actually any good reasons why we _should_ upgrade in the first > > > > place? > > > > > > Of course. W

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-06 Thread The Hermit Hacker
On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Doug Barton wrote: > Christopher Masto wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:52:13AM +0100, Nick Hibma wrote: > > > Are there actually any good reasons why we _should_ upgrade in the first > > > place? > > > > Of course. We now have an obsolete version of Perl. That sh

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-06 Thread Doug Barton
Christopher Masto wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:52:13AM +0100, Nick Hibma wrote: > > Are there actually any good reasons why we _should_ upgrade in the first > > place? > > Of course. We now have an obsolete version of Perl. That should be > reason enough to upgrade. You haven

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-03 Thread Kris Kennaway
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote: > Which either gives me two different versions of PERL to worry about or > forces me to use an unsupported version for making the world. It's bad > enough that I have to work around the sendmail bug in the base system > ;-) The issue with perl, t

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-03 Thread Jeroen C. van Gelderen
Brad Knowles wrote: > > At 11:59 AM -0400 2000/4/3, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote: > > > PERL is not just used by the FreeBSD system, it's also used by many > > applications ran on top of FreeBSD. Those applications are more likely > > to require an up-to-date version of PERL. We for one need

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-03 Thread Brad Knowles
At 11:59 AM -0400 2000/4/3, Jeroen C. van Gelderen wrote: > PERL is not just used by the FreeBSD system, it's also used by many > applications ran on top of FreeBSD. Those applications are more likely > to require an up-to-date version of PERL. We for one need the (overly > late) 64-bit suppo

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-03 Thread Christopher Masto
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:52:13AM +0100, Nick Hibma wrote: > Are there actually any good reasons why we _should_ upgrade in the first > place? Of course. We now have an obsolete version of Perl. That should be reason enough to upgrade. 5.6 is the first major release in over a year. It has si

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-03 Thread Jeroen C. van Gelderen
ree. Problems in a dot-zero release are a very good argument against importing PERL 5.6.0 now. Of course it would be even better to just import PERL4 again and force everybody to use Python, but that's another religious war ;-/ Cheers, Jeroen To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-03 Thread Anton Berezin
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 07:01:10AM -0500, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote: > I would think the perl upgrade would also be done in current. I would > think you would want to track this sort of thing as closely as > possible - unless there is an pending release - which there isn't. > Users will follow c

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-03 Thread Chuck Robey
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000, Christopher Masto wrote: > On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 05:56:22PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: > > On Sun, 2 Apr 2000, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote: > > > > > Are there any plans to merge perl-5.6.0 into current? I don't have any > > > plans

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-03 Thread Thomas T. Veldhouse
is good > enough in 99% of the cases. > > Including Perl in the make world build is something entirely different > from doing a make install /usr/ports, I'm sure. > > Nick > > > > > > Are there any plans to merge perl-5.6.0 into current? I don'

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-03 Thread Sheldon Hearn
On Sun, 02 Apr 2000 17:56:22 -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: > Hmm. What with the nightmarish build structure of perl, I'm sure that > reading this is just going to wreck Mark's day. I doubt it. Not for a while, anyway. Mark and I chatted about the state of the mailing lists over drinks last Frid

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-03 Thread Sheldon Hearn
On Mon, 03 Apr 2000 10:52:13 +0100, Nick Hibma wrote: > Are there actually any good reasons why we _should_ upgrade in the first > place? Security fixes, added functionality we require, etc. The perl we > have is stable and the problems it has are well known, which is good > enough in 99% of th

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-03 Thread Nick Hibma
entirely different from doing a make install /usr/ports, I'm sure. Nick > > > Are there any plans to merge perl-5.6.0 into current? I don't have any > > > plans for using it currently, but I curious. > > > > Hmm. What with the nightmarish build structure

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-02 Thread Christopher Masto
On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 05:56:22PM -0400, Chuck Robey wrote: > On Sun, 2 Apr 2000, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote: > > > Are there any plans to merge perl-5.6.0 into current? I don't have any > > plans for using it currently, but I curious. > > Hmm. What with the n

Re: Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-02 Thread Chuck Robey
On Sun, 2 Apr 2000, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote: > Are there any plans to merge perl-5.6.0 into current? I don't have any > plans for using it currently, but I curious. Hmm. What with the nightmarish build structure of perl, I'm sure that reading this is just going to wreck

Perl 5.6.0?

2000-04-02 Thread Thomas T. Veldhouse
Are there any plans to merge perl-5.6.0 into current? I don't have any plans for using it currently, but I curious. Thanks, Tom Veldhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message