>> 3) hard to take decisions on when to upgrade the 5-
>
> Variants and subports would make this easier in the future. There would be
> little/no resistance for adding a variant or subport for a newer perl.
>
>
> The current perl5.12 ports work well for me so I will leave further
> discussion
On May 28, 2012, at 1:15 AM, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
> Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>>
>> I will submit a new patch replacing ${perl5.major} with p5.14.
>>
>
> And I do know that using ${perl5.major} makes their builds unrepeatable
> according to some, but it only breaks if you switch version in
On 2012-5-28 18:15 , Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
> Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>>
>> I will submit a new patch replacing ${perl5.major} with p5.14.
>>
>
> And I do know that using ${perl5.major} makes their builds unrepeatable
> according to some, but it only breaks if you switch version in perl5 -
>
I like macports over and above Linux because it alows me to modify the
Portfiles and make my own decisions regarding a lot of things
There are policies with which I don't agree, which is why I'm running my
own private patches, and macports makes this possible for me.
:-) Happy Hacking :-)
--
Bja
Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>
> I will submit a new patch replacing ${perl5.major} with p5.14.
>
And I do know that using ${perl5.major} makes their builds unrepeatable
according to some, but it only breaks if you switch version in perl5 -
otherwise you'll get the same each and every time you buil
Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>
> The existing ports that are changed by the patch-perl5.xx.diff patch are hard
> coded to perl5.12. I incorrectly believed that ${perl5.major} would be a
> static version (currently 5.12) from the portgroup unless subports were in
> use, and that when MacPorts chang
On 2012-5-28 14:01 , Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>
> Would it be advantageous to have a static default perl version the perl5
> portgroup that would allow for advancing the version number in dependents?
Not really, you would need to edit each portfile in order to rev bump
when the dependencies cha
On May 27, 2012, at 8:23 PM, Joshua Root wrote:
> On 2012-5-28 12:40 , Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>>
>> On May 27, 2012, at 2:29 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
>>
>>> On May 25, 2012, at 11:02 a.m., Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>>>
https://trac.macports.org/attachment/ticket/34617/patch-perl5.
On 2012-5-28 12:40 , Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>
> On May 27, 2012, at 2:29 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
>
>> On May 25, 2012, at 11:02 a.m., Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>>
>>> https://trac.macports.org/attachment/ticket/34617/patch-perl5.xx.diff
>>>
>>> The patch looks reasonable to me. I look fo
On May 27, 2012, at 2:29 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
> On May 25, 2012, at 11:02 a.m., Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>
>> https://trac.macports.org/attachment/ticket/34617/patch-perl5.xx.diff
>>
>> The patch looks reasonable to me. I look forward to hearing what others
>> think.
>
> As has been
in these
ports makes their builds unrepeatable.
vq
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Joshua Root
> Subject: Re: [enhancement] proposal - make all ports independent of which
> version of Perl is installed or the major one
> Date: May 18, 2012 4:58:39 a.m. EDT
> To: MacPorts Developme
On May 24, 2012, at 4:42 PM, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
> Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>>
>> On May 24, 2012, at 2:50 PM, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
>>
>>> Now, when I've got that file, how / where do you want it ???
>>
>> Create a MacPorts trac ticket with a nice subject and attach your file to
>
Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>
> On May 24, 2012, at 2:50 PM, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
>
>> I haven't got that much experience with svn, git, hg
>> beyound the basics.
>>
>> Actually, what the two of us did with your hg is the most advanced I've
>> ever worked with version control !!! :-O
>
> You
Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>
> On May 24, 2012, at 2:50 PM, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
>
>> Now, when I've got that file, how / where do you want it ???
>
> Create a MacPorts trac ticket with a nice subject and attach your file to the
> ticket.
> I'll watch for the ticket. You can add me "pixi...
On May 24, 2012, at 2:50 PM, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
> Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>>
>> Working in a svn tree is definitely the easiest way for you to collaborate
>> with your fellow MacPorts contributers.
>>
>> If you were to run your script in a svn checkout of trunk/dports you would
>> be
Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>
> Working in a svn tree is definitely the easiest way for you to collaborate
> with your fellow MacPorts contributers.
>
> If you were to run your script in a svn checkout of trunk/dports you would be
> able to provide the desired diff with "cd dports && svn diff >
On May 24, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
> Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>> On May 24, 2012, at 8:53 AM, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
>>
>>> Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
Thank you Bjarne.
Bjarne, if you were to follow this simple setup you could produce the
prefer
Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
> On May 24, 2012, at 8:53 AM, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
>
>> Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>>>
>>> Thank you Bjarne.
>>>
>>> Bjarne, if you were to follow this simple setup you could produce the
>>> preferred diff files (svn diff perl > patch-perl-deps-to-perl-5.14.diff)
>
On May 24, 2012, at 8:53 AM, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
> Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>>
>> Thank you Bjarne.
>>
>> Bjarne, if you were to follow this simple setup you could produce the
>> preferred diff files (svn diff perl > patch-perl-deps-to-perl-5.14.diff)
>> that will allow the widest audie
On May 24, 2012, at 11:53 AM, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
>> Bjarne, if you were to follow this simple setup you could produce the
>> preferred diff files (svn diff perl > patch-perl-deps-to-perl-5.14.diff)
>> that will allow the widest audience to view, critique and act on your work.
>
> My scrip
Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>
> Thank you Bjarne.
>
> Bjarne, if you were to follow this simple setup you could produce the
> preferred diff files (svn diff perl > patch-perl-deps-to-perl-5.14.diff) that
> will allow the widest audience to view, critique and act on your work.
My script already p
On May 23, 2012, at 8:36 PM, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
> Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
>> Eric Hall wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 09:07:58PM +0200, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
Now, we do have 96 ports that have perl5.12 hardcoded into them.
That means, that they are presently 2 (two) yea
and of course, there's an error in my script :-(
line 36 has to be :
grep -E -e "(perl5.${version}|p5.${version})" $(port file
${portname[0]}) \
--
Bjarne D Mathiesen
København N ; Danmark ; Europa
--
denne besked er sk
Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
> Eric Hall wrote:
>> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 09:07:58PM +0200, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
>>> Now, we do have 96 ports that have perl5.12 hardcoded into them.
>>> That means, that they are presently 2 (two) years behind schedule as I
>>> see it.
>>>
>>> If we don't come to
On May 23, 2012, at 4:02 PM, Eric Hall wrote:
> Overall I think it's *far* better to be able to have
> multiple versions of perl installed at once. There are some
> challenges to that, and I readily admit I don't have the time
> to focus on them right now.
which is precisely the reason why
Eric Hall wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 09:07:58PM +0200, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
>> http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2012-May/019336.html
>> http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2012-May/019338.html
>>
>> It's now been almost a week with no activity in this thr
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 09:07:58PM +0200, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
> http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2012-May/019336.html
> http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2012-May/019338.html
>
> It's now been almost a week with no activity in this thread
> and no resolutio
http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2012-May/019336.html
http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2012-May/019338.html
It's now been almost a week with no activity in this thread
and no resolution in sight as to what we do as a group.
Presently, Perl 5.16.0 has just been
Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
> On May 18, 2012, at 8:13 a.m., Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
>
>> I really do think we need to find some kind of solution to this problem
>> with having Perl 5.12 hardcoded into 96 (the 92 my scipt finds in my
>> setup + the 4 I've personally converted) ports. Presently, it
On May 18, 2012, at 8:13 a.m., Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
> I really do think we need to find some kind of solution to this problem
> with having Perl 5.12 hardcoded into 96 (the 92 my scipt finds in my
> setup + the 4 I've personally converted) ports. Presently, it hinders
> people in using any ot
OK - that clarifies what will go wrong in a way so that even I can
understand it ;-)
Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
> On May 17, 2012, at 7:25 p.m., Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
>
>>> Your idea won't work right. If the path to an arbitrary perl is
>>> inserted into any of the files installed by the port,
On 2012-5-18 08:30 , Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
> 1) We still need a policy decision as to whether is should be hardcoded
>as now -or- we'll use my proposal that I consider more fully
>developed regarding future releases of Perl
There can be a choice about which version of perl to use, it j
On May 17, 2012, at 7:25 p.m., Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
>> Your idea won't work right. If the path to an arbitrary perl is
>> inserted into any of the files installed by the port, the build is no
>> longer repeatable.
>
> But I'm *not* inserting an arbitrary value of Perl into any file.
> At con
On May 17, 2012, at 4:09 PM, Eric Hall wrote:
> Both +thread and +shared will impose a performance penalty as
> of perl5.12 (see this thread:
> http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.perl5.porters/2009/11/msg153361.html).
> I don't know if this is still true for perl5.14 or not (I didn't find
>
Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> On May 17, 2012, at 17:30, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
>
>> 1) We still need a policy decision as to whether is should be hardcoded
>> as now -or- we'll use my proposal that I consider more fully
>> developed regarding future releases of Perl
>
> I thought Joshua alread
On May 17, 2012, at 17:30, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
> 1) We still need a policy decision as to whether is should be hardcoded
> as now -or- we'll use my proposal that I consider more fully
> developed regarding future releases of Perl
I thought Joshua already explained why your proposal can
Eric Hall wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 09:20:31PM +0200, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
>> Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
>>> Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
I'll have some stat shortly as to how many & which ports we are talking
about.
>>>
>>> ++
>>> + ports depen
Hi,
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 01:16:44PM -0700, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
> $ port cat mod_perl2 | grep -A10 -- pre-configure
> pre-configure {
> set perl5bin "${prefix}/bin/perl5"
> if {[string first "true" [exec ${perl5bin} -V:useshrplib]] == -1} {
> ui_error "${name} requires perl
On May 17, 2012, at 1:09 PM, Eric Hall wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 03:44:08AM +0200, Clemens Lang wrote:
>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 06:05:45PM -0700, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>>> I do not recall why but at some point I needed "perl5.12 +threads
>>> +shared" and after upgrading perl5.12 wit
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 03:44:08AM +0200, Clemens Lang wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 06:05:45PM -0700, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
> > I do not recall why but at some point I needed "perl5.12 +threads
> > +shared" and after upgrading perl5.12 with these variants NONE of my
> > perl modules were f
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 09:20:31PM +0200, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
> Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
> > Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
> >> I'll have some stat shortly as to how many & which ports we are talking
> >> about.
> >
> > ++
> > + ports dependent on Perl 5.12
>
Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
> Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
>> I'll have some stat shortly as to how many & which ports we are talking
>> about.
>
> ++
> + ports dependent on Perl 5.12
> +
> PsyncX@2.2.2 aqua
...
> xfwm4 @4.
Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
> I'll have some stat shortly as to how many & which ports we are talking
> about.
after some problems with variable scoping and piping, process
substitution came to the rescue, and I got this piece of bash 4.2 :
for version in 12 8 10 14
do
cat << EOT
+
Joshua Root wrote:
> On 2012-5-16 11:01 , Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
>> I'ld like to return to my orignal problem :
>> making ports independent of which version of Perl is installed
>> -or-
>> the major one
>>
>> So - my question still stands : are you interested in me doing the basic
On 2012-5-16 11:46 , Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
> On May 15, 2012, at 9:01 p.m., Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
>
>> So - my question still stands : are you interested in me doing the basic
>> hard work in making ports that are hardcoded to a specific Perl5 version
>> independent of which version is ins
On 2012-5-16 11:01 , Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
> I'ld like to return to my orignal problem :
> making ports independent of which version of Perl is installed
> -or-
> the major one
>
> Previously, the discussion rapidly deteriorated into quite other
> problems having not that muc
On May 15, 2012, at 6:44 PM, Clemens Lang wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 06:05:45PM -0700, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
>> I do not recall why but at some point I needed "perl5.12 +threads
>> +shared" and after upgrading perl5.12 with these variants NONE of my
>> perl modules were found. It was
> This question has been asked a couple of times on this list now and I
> have yet to hear a reason for why our perl isn't always +threads and
> +shared other than "I think I once knew somebody who back in the old
> days had some unspecified specified problem with perl +threads/+shared."
> ;)
> I'l
On May 15, 2012, at 9:01 p.m., Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
> So - my question still stands : are you interested in me doing the basic
> hard work in making ports that are hardcoded to a specific Perl5 version
> independent of which version is installed or the major one ???
Wasn't this the way thin
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 06:05:45PM -0700, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
> I do not recall why but at some point I needed "perl5.12 +threads
> +shared" and after upgrading perl5.12 with these variants NONE of my
> perl modules were found. It was required that I reinstall all perl
> modules.
>
> Would
On May 15, 2012, at 3:35 PM, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
> Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>> On May 15, 2012, at 6:09 PM, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
>>> ports can be made independent of which version of Perl is installed or
>>> the major one by
>>
>>
>> In my opinion, we would be better served by just choo
I'ld like to return to my orignal problem :
making ports independent of which version of Perl is installed
-or-
the major one
Previously, the discussion rapidly deteriorated into quite other
problems having not that much to do with the subject of the thread.
The points pre
Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
> On May 15, 2012, at 7:12 p.m., Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
>
>> One idea might be to first of all transition Perl to using the select
>> system. I can see some point in the future where we might want to keep
>> at least two version of Perl that can live on the system and
On May 15, 2012, at 7:12 p.m., Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
> One idea might be to first of all transition Perl to using the select
> system. I can see some point in the future where we might want to keep
> at least two version of Perl that can live on the system and work
> independently of each othe
Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
> On May 15, 2012, at 6:35 p.m., Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
>
>> Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>>> On May 15, 2012, at 6:09 PM, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
ports can be made independent of which version of Perl is installed or
the major one by
>>>
>>>
>>> In my opinion, we
On May 15, 2012, at 6:35 p.m., Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
> Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>> On May 15, 2012, at 6:09 PM, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
>>> ports can be made independent of which version of Perl is installed or
>>> the major one by
>>
>>
>> In my opinion, we would be better served by just cho
Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On May 15, 2012, at 6:09 PM, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
>> ports can be made independent of which version of Perl is installed or
>> the major one by
>
>
> In my opinion, we would be better served by just choosing one version of perl
> (which would be 5.14 right now) as ou
On May 15, 2012, at 3:14 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On May 15, 2012, at 6:09 PM, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
>> ports can be made independent of which version of Perl is installed or
>> the major one by
>
>
> In my opinion, we would be better served by just choosing one version of perl
> (which
On May 15, 2012, at 6:09 PM, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote:
> ports can be made independent of which version of Perl is installed or
> the major one by
In my opinion, we would be better served by just choosing one version of perl
(which would be 5.14 right now) as our 'perl', and possibly offering ol
As already used in p5-dbd-mysql and proposed by me in
https://trac.macports.org/ticket/34461
https://trac.macports.org/ticket/34357
ports can be made independent of which version of Perl is installed or
the major one by
1) setting a portgroup:
PortGroup perl5 1.0
2) ch
60 matches
Mail list logo
