On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 09:20:55PM +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote: > On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 12:05:48PM -0800, Andrew Hewus Fresh wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 06:45:12PM +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 05:13:01PM +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 02:24:51AM +0100, Marc Espie wrote: > > > > > Or we can automate this with something like this: > > > > > > > <SNIP> > > > Our Devel::PPPort is too old. We ship with 3.57, p5-CDB_File and p5-Moose > > > ship with ppport.h generated by 3.62. > > > > We could update Devel::PPPort in base. > > This will fix the current problem. But we can always have an old > Devel::PPPort in base and a have module in ports that comes with > and needs a new ppport.h. > > Somehow the porter should have a mechanism to handle this. Only 2 > of 300 ports that I test have issues, so it is a rare action. Per > default espie@'s idea works well. If we manually fix 2 ports that > is fine for me. > > Or we replace ppport.h only if it is outdated.
We could add espie's target to those two ports. > > I do plan to work on getting 5.34 in after I finish my fw_update(8) TODO > > list and get the "vendor lib" patch committed. I'm not sure that will > > make 7.1 though. > > Plans for new Perl are good to hear. Thanks for updating it regualry. Sure thing, some exciting stuff coming in the future. I think signatures may actually make it out of experimental status. l8rZ, -- andrew Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later.
