On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 14:53 +0200, Firmicus wrote:
I've sent the following message to Kevin a week ago, but since he has not responded, I thought it was best to raise the issue on this list.
---
Perl 5.10.0 suffers from a few bugs, which have been fixed in Strawberry Perl (for Windows) and Debian.
I would really like to apply the latest Debian patch for Perl 5.10.0 (description at http://patch-tracking.debian.net/package/perl/5.10.0-23 and patch at http://patch-tracking.debian.net/patch/nondebian/dl/perl/5.10.0-23). I know our our policy is to be as vanilla as possible, but take it as the exception that confirms the rule (and a consequence of the fact that perl releases occur at an extremely slow pace).
My PKGBUILD and the debian patch with my modifications to get rid of Debian-specific stuff are here: http://archlinux.org/~francois/perl_pkgbuild+patch.tar.gz It compiles well here and "make test" passes all the tests. I have used it without problem for two weeks now. If you agree, I can upload the packages for both arches to testing this evening.
NB: the Debian patch takes care of FS#13901 BTW, any opinion on FS#10971 and FS#13808 ?
Hi Firmicus. You sent it Friday and I don't check my mail every day, sorry. It is a big patch and there are no descriptions but I they must be fixing something or they wouldn't bother. :) At a minimum I think we should definitely fix the Unicode problem (13901) and the toke.c problem. I have no objection to the whole patch though. If you're confident the patched perl is OK then I say we go for it. The libperl.a/so problem (10971) needs to be fixed - I dropped the ball on that one. As for 13808, I don't recall what our stance is on FHS compliance. Ultimately the PATH's get added by a script so where the binaries live isn't a real issue. We would need to rebuild the packages that have scripts or include the old perlbin PATH's during a migration period. Would you like me to build it or are you OK? K
-- K. Piche <kpiche@rogers.com>