Sorry, I wrote a reply to this message on Tuesday, but as I had to run to catch a train, I forgot to press "send". Just got back this afternoon... K. Piche wrote:
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.
<snip> Hi Firmicus.
You sent it Friday and I don't check my mail every day, sorry.
No problem. I have a GD flu this week so my perception of time is blurried ;)
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.
I have the same feeling. I'd be happy with a minimal patch, but I don't have objections against the whole thing, as long as it's well documented.
The libperl.a/so problem (10971) needs to be fixed - I dropped the ball on that one.
Ok. This can be deferred.
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.
Same.
Would you like me to build it or are you OK?
I'll do it tonight. F