On Mar 8, 2011, Dave Aiello wrote:
> Do you think that this should be raised as some sort of bug? I mean,
> I would never have thought that something labeled "perl5
> @5.12.3_1+perl5_8" was actually Perl 5.8.9 unless someone suggested
> it.
We could change the version of the perl5 port to just "5
Forwarding to the list as Dave's reply to me off-list may be worth
considering in terms of how to move forward with this perl5 stuff.
Scott
-- Forwarded message --
From: Dave Aiello
Date: Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: perl5, perl5.* changes
To: Scott Webster
O
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Dave Aiello wrote:
> I started trying to install Perl 5.8 by "perl5 +perl5_8", and here were
> my results:
>
> bash-3.2# port install perl5 +perl5_8
> ---> Computing dependencies for perl5
> ---> Fetching perl5
> ---> Verifying checksum(s) for perl5
> ---> Extr
Arno Hautala alum.wpi.edu> writes:
> I think a cleaner transition would have been to add the 5.8 variant,
> set it as default (essentially no change from the previous behavior),
> and then wait some number of weeks before changing the default variant
> to 5.12. This way, most users would already
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/3/11 03:45 , Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2011-03-01 16:50:53 +, Eric Hall wrote:
>> I'm quite clear on the need for multiple versions of perl.
>> For one, I use several perl versions for what I do. IIRC the ghc port
>> requires perl5.8 f
On Mar 3, 2011, at 02:45, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Debian has perl 5.10 (5.12 is in experimental for the moment) and ghc.
> So, ghc should work with perl 5.10 (and in such a case, I don't see
> why it wouldn't work with perl 5.12).
See also:
https://trac.macports.org/ticket/26488
https://trac.
On 2011-03-01 16:50:53 +, Eric Hall wrote:
> I'm quite clear on the need for multiple versions of perl.
> For one, I use several perl versions for what I do. IIRC the ghc port
> requires perl5.8 for its configuration, newer versions of perl
> don't work (this may have changed, though I s
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 08:53:25AM +0100, Erwan David wrote:
> ANd what abbout ports like ghostscript which depends on perl, but are not in
> p5-* ?
If they do not build perl modules, they should not need to be rebuilt.
That said, it's quite possible I missed something; if you still have
problem
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 03:01:18AM CET, Dan Ports said:
> I just revbumped all of the ports that build perl5 modules in r76604.
>
> So if you have been having problems, the next
> `port selfupdate && port upgrade outdated` should rebuild quite a few
> ports with perl 5.12 and get things working
I just revbumped all of the ports that build perl5 modules in r76604.
So if you have been having problems, the next
`port selfupdate && port upgrade outdated` should rebuild quite a few
ports with perl 5.12 and get things working again.
Dan
--
Dan R. K. Ports MIT CSAIL
On Mar 1, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> The suggestion was: when the version of perl is updated, all ports using the
> perl5 portgroup should automatically have their revisions increased. I don't
> know how to accomplish that using a portgroup.
Well, you could do it the same way as
On Mar 1, 2011, at 14:13, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2011, at 2:28 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>
>
>> On Feb 28, 2011, at 20:33, Arno Hautala wrote:
>>
>>> This would also be a good candidate for enhancing the perl5 PortGroup.
>>> Automatically "revbump" when the perl5 port is updated. Thou
On Mar 1, 2011, at 2:28 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> On Feb 28, 2011, at 20:33, Arno Hautala wrote:
>
>> This would also be a good candidate for enhancing the perl5 PortGroup.
>> Automatically "revbump" when the perl5 port is updated. Though this
>> could probably be rolled into the version depend
On Feb 28, 2011, at 20:33, Arno Hautala wrote:
> This would also be a good candidate for enhancing the perl5 PortGroup.
> Automatically "revbump" when the perl5 port is updated. Though this
> could probably be rolled into the version dependency work.
The portgroup isn't the appropriate place to
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 05:25:12PM +0100, Rainer M?ller wrote:
> Not an objection per se, but as this has been discussed on
> macports-users only, I am explicitly adding Eric and Marcus as current
> maintainers of perl5 to CC to this post.
Thanks -- I missed that this was going only to macports-us
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 11:09:19AM -0500, Arno Hautala wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 10:45, Dan Ports wrote:
> >
> > If no one objects, I'll do exactly this today.
>
> One, slight, objection.
>
> In the interest of not having to revbump twice, are we ready to fully
> migrate to 5.12?
> I've se
On 2011-03-01 16:45 , Dan Ports wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 04:34:22PM -0800, Dan Ports wrote:
>> I see this as a high-priority issue that affects many people. So if we
>> can get things closer to working by revbumping a bunch of ports, we
>> should do that ASAP. Is there any reason *not* to r
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 10:45, Dan Ports wrote:
>
> If no one objects, I'll do exactly this today.
One, slight, objection.
In the interest of not having to revbump twice, are we ready to fully
migrate to 5.12?
I've seen several votes for dropping the multiple perl versions and
just following the
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 04:34:22PM -0800, Dan Ports wrote:
> I see this as a high-priority issue that affects many people. So if we
> can get things closer to working by revbumping a bunch of ports, we
> should do that ASAP. Is there any reason *not* to revbump p5-* (or more
> precisely anything us
Am 01.03.11 03:33, schrieb Arno Hautala:
> I say drop the version options, make perl5 install 5.12, and any newer
> version in the future, and then revbump all the p5- modules.
+1
Martin
--
Martin Krischik
mailto://krisc...@users.sourceforge.net
https://sourceforge.net/users/krischik
__
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 19:34, Dan Ports wrote:
>
> Yes, I'm also confused by this. It's possible to have multiple versions
> of perl5 installed, but as far as I can tell modules can only be
> installed for one of them -- whichever one was installed as
> $prefix/bin/perl at the time the moduls wer
I've tried in the past to avoid finding out too much about how the p5
ports work, not being an avid perl user, but this situation has
motivated me to look into it a bit more.
My understanding of the current state of things is that a typical user,
after a selfupdate and port upgrade outdated, will
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> On Feb 27, 2011, at 00:02, Scott Webster wrote:
>
>> So can we revbump all the affected p5 ports now? Is it all p5- ports
>> or just some of them?
>
> It was said that only the p5-* ports that compile things need to be rebuilt
> (not thos
Am 27.02.2011 um 16:44 schrieb Ryan Schmidt:
> [snip, snip, snip]
> Right, but users with problems file tickets (which I spend time sorting and
> assigning) and write to the mailing list (which I spend time reading and
> replying to), and I know you and other team members do too, so there is an
On Feb 27, 2011, at 09:28, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2011, at 12:57 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>
>>> Sure. Are you suggesting that something can/should be done right now to
>>> help this?
>>
>> One was already suggested: the perl5 port should have added a 5.8 variant
>> that became the
On Feb 27, 2011, at 12:57 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> Sure. Are you suggesting that something can/should be done right now to help
>> this?
>
> One was already suggested: the perl5 port should have added a 5.8 variant
> that became the default,
you do know that the perl5 port used to be perl5
Am 26.02.11 21:39, schrieb Dan Ports:
> In the meantime, I've reinstalled the perl5 port with +perl5_8 in the
> interest of having a working system.
Thanks for the hint. It seems that Gimp compiles again. My defaults will
now be “-atlas +perl5_8” and I hope all will be well again :-)
Martin
--
Am 26.02.11 22:47, schrieb Daniel J. Luke:
> but I don't know of any reasons to keep 5.8 around.
Truer words where never spoken (in this thread).
Martin
--
Martin Krischik
mailto://krisc...@users.sourceforge.net
https://sourceforge.net/users/krischik
Am 26.02.11 21:35, schrieb Arno Hautala:
> Those who want to stick with 5.8 need to recognize that a
> change is being made and specifically add the 5.8 variant.
You forgetting something here: Most users actually give a s**t which
Perl version is installed. All they want is to compile some port
Am 26.02.11 21:02, schrieb Daniel J. Luke:
> If you've got ideas (or code) for how to help make things better, I'm sure
> people would be happy :)
Yes: Stop supporting so many different versions. Just support the newest
official version of Perl 5 and Perl 6 and rev-bump all modules every
time you
Having switched to 5.12 and reinstalled all my modules, I'm noting
only a few issues.
p5-module-sha looks to be included with 5.12. It should probably be
marked as replaced by, or conflicting with, 5.12.
p5-archive-tar is partially included with 5.12. With a quick glance,
the only difference is t
On Feb 27, 2011, at 00:02, Scott Webster wrote:
> So can we revbump all the affected p5 ports now? Is it all p5- ports
> or just some of them?
It was said that only the p5-* ports that compile things need to be rebuilt
(not those that just install files). If that is true, then those portfiles
So can we revbump all the affected p5 ports now? Is it all p5- ports
or just some of them?
Scott
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> On Feb 26, 2011, at 22:54, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>
>> On Feb 26, 2011, at 6:28 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>>
>>> These people don't care about
On Feb 26, 2011, at 22:54, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2011, at 6:28 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> These people don't care about perl, they just care about other software that
>> happens to use perl, and that's an implementation detail they expect the
>> package manager to handle for th
On Feb 26, 2011, at 6:28 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> These people don't care about perl, they just care about other software that
> happens to use perl, and that's an implementation detail they expect the
> package manager to handle for them. This upgrade should have been handled in
> a way th
On Feb 26, 2011, at 10:03 PM, Arno Hautala wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 16:47, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>> My personal opinion is that we shouldn't bother with the 5.x ports. We
>> should have moved perl5 from 5.8 to 5.10 to 5.12 and just rev-bumped the p5
>> ports when the changes were made
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 16:47, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>
> My personal opinion is that we shouldn't bother with the 5.x ports. We should
> have moved perl5 from 5.8 to 5.10 to 5.12 and just rev-bumped the p5 ports
> when the changes were made ...
This sounds pretty sane. Are there any reports of
On Feb 26, 2011, at 8:48 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>
>> There may be a case for keeping perl5 around once perl6 appears (if
>> ever) - but I don't know of any reasons to keep 5.8 around.
>
> AFAIK, Perl6 is a completely different and incompatible language
> (unless the Perl6 interpreter can dete
On 2011-02-26 16:47:01 -0500, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> My personal opinion is that we shouldn't bother with the 5.x ports.
> We should have moved perl5 from 5.8 to 5.10 to 5.12 and just
> rev-bumped the p5 ports when the changes were made ...
I completely agree. Like the other ports.
> There may b
On Feb 26, 2011, at 14:02, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Martin Krischik wrote:
>>
>> Am 26.02.11 05:02, schrieb Ryan Schmidt:
>>> Doesn't this update therefore break everybody's system?
>>
>> The answer is YES.
>
> I didn't know you were everybody.
>
> (hint, it didn'
On Feb 26, 2011, at 3:35 PM, Arno Hautala wrote:
>
> Personally, I'm not sure I'm ready to move to 5.12 (I need to
> recompile all my installed p5 modules and test a few scripts), so I've
> resolved things on my side by correcting my "broken" perl5 install
> with perl5+perl5_8.
>
> At least, that
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 10:02:50PM -0600, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> Your update causes perl5.12 to be installed and become the default version,
> but your update does not cause all p5-* ports to be rebuilt, which you say
> would be necessary. Doesn't this update therefore break everybody's system?
W
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 15:02, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>
> If you've got ideas (or code) for how to help make things better, I'm sure
> people would be happy :)
I think some of the issue is the way that the default was changed.
Previously perl 5.8 was the default and 5.10 and 5.12 were available
On Feb 26, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Martin Krischik wrote:
>
> Am 26.02.11 05:02, schrieb Ryan Schmidt:
>> Doesn't this update therefore break everybody's system?
>
> The answer is YES.
I didn't know you were everybody.
(hint, it didn't break people who were already on perl5.12).
> I can't compile G
On Feb 26, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Martin Krischik wrote:
>
> Am 25.02.11 18:28, schrieb Eric Hall:
>> If you have perl modules that have compiled
>> bits in them they will need to be rebuilt when you
>> upgrade between perl versions (perl5.8 to perl5.12 for
>> example). The same goes if you change p
On 26 Feb 2011, at 16:34, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Mark Hattam wrote:
>>
Error: port activate failed: Image error: /opt/local/bin/a2p is being used
by the active perl5.8 port. Please deactivate this port first, or use
'port -f activate perl5' to for
If you also upgrade perl5.8 then it gets rid of a2p and replaces it
with a2p-5.8 (or something like that) so after you upgrade that you
can activate perl5 without problems. Of course there are still the
other issues...
Scott
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Marko Käning wrote:
>> What am I supp
Am 26.02.11 05:02, schrieb Ryan Schmidt:
> Doesn't this update therefore break everybody's system?
The answer is YES. I can't compile Gimp any more. And if you look at the
bug tracker: Perl Modules have brought pain to the users for over two
years now and no fix is sight.
Martin
--
Martin Kris
Am 25.02.11 18:28, schrieb Eric Hall:
> If you have perl modules that have compiled
> bits in them they will need to be rebuilt when you
> upgrade between perl versions (perl5.8 to perl5.12 for
> example). The same goes if you change perl5.8 variants
> like +threads.
Good that we are all
On 26 Feb 2011, at 16:25, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Mark Hattam wrote:
>>
>> iMac:~ mark$ sudo port activate perl5 @5.12.3_0+perl5_12
>> ---> Computing dependencies for perl5
>> ---> Activating perl5 @5.12.3_0+perl5_12
>> Error: Target org.macports.activate returned
On Feb 26, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Mark Hattam wrote:
>
>>> Error: port activate failed: Image error: /opt/local/bin/a2p is being used
>>> by the active perl5.8 port. Please deactivate this port first, or use
>>> 'port -f activate perl5' to force the activation.
>
> The output from the initial "upg
On 26 Feb 2011, at 16:25, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Mark Hattam wrote:
>>
>> iMac:~ mark$ sudo port activate perl5 @5.12.3_0+perl5_12
>> ---> Computing dependencies for perl5
>> ---> Activating perl5 @5.12.3_0+perl5_12
>> Error: Target org.macports.activate returned
well, did you deactivate perl5 first?
or, did you use "-f" during activate?
___
macports-users mailing list
macports-users@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
On Feb 26, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Mark Hattam wrote:
>
> iMac:~ mark$ sudo port activate perl5 @5.12.3_0+perl5_12
> ---> Computing dependencies for perl5
> ---> Activating perl5 @5.12.3_0+perl5_12
> Error: Target org.macports.activate returned: Image error: /opt/local/bin/a2p
> is being used by the
On 26 Feb 2011, at 16:15, Marko Käning wrote:
>> What am I supposed to do ??
>>
>> The following installed ports are outdated:
>> perl5 5.8.9_0 < 5.12.3_0
>> perl5.85.8.9_3 < 5.8.9_4
>> All Done
>> iMac:~ mark$ sudo port upgrade p
> What am I supposed to do ??
>
> The following installed ports are outdated:
> perl5 5.8.9_0 < 5.12.3_0
> perl5.85.8.9_3 < 5.8.9_4
> All Done
> iMac:~ mark$ sudo port upgrade perl5
> ---> Fetching perl5.12
> ---> Attempting to fe
On 25 Feb 2011, at 17:28, Eric Hall wrote:
> FYI-
> I've just commited changes to the perl5*
> ports (perl5, perl5.8, perl5.10, perl5.12) to:
>
> * Make perl5.* install their bin/ and man/
> components with the perl version number in the filename.
>
> * Make the perl5 port link
On Feb 25, 2011, at 11:28, Eric Hall wrote:
> I've just commited changes to the perl5*
> ports (perl5, perl5.8, perl5.10, perl5.12) to:
>
> * Make perl5.* install their bin/ and man/
> components with the perl version number in the filename.
>
> * Make the perl5 port link the b
FYI-
I've just commited changes to the perl5*
ports (perl5, perl5.8, perl5.10, perl5.12) to:
* Make perl5.* install their bin/ and man/
components with the perl version number in the filename.
* Make the perl5 port link the bin/ and man/
components from the 'active' perl5.
59 matches
Mail list logo
