[arch-dev-public] perl 5.12.3 - Arch-dev-public - lists.archlinux.org

newer
[arch-dev-public] [signoff]...

[arch-dev-public] perl 5.12.3

older
Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff]...

Ángel Velásquez

27 Jan 2011 27 Jan '11

5:06 p.m.

Hi, As you know yesterday a new minor version of 5.12 branch of perl were released. I've recently rebuilt perl 5.12.2 which is in [testing] waiting for signoff to fix a little bug with building with gcc 4.5. So, basicly we have to do the rebuild that we did the last month again for some packages, I can work with this if Kevin isn't available (cc'ing him) so ideally IMO we can start the rebuild of perl dependencies into [staging] then get into [testing] after the week of Feb 5th Opinions? ideas? -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Developer / Trusted User Linux Counter: #359909 http://www.angvp.com

Show replies by date

Ionuț Bîru

27 Jan 27 Jan

5:12 p.m.

On 01/27/2011 07:06 PM, Ángel Velásquez wrote:

Hi,

As you know yesterday a new minor version of 5.12 branch of perl were released.

I've recently rebuilt perl 5.12.2 which is in [testing] waiting for signoff to fix a little bug with building with gcc 4.5.

So, basicly we have to do the rebuild that we did the last month again for some packages, I can work with this if Kevin isn't available (cc'ing him) so ideally IMO we can start the rebuild of perl dependencies into [staging] then get into [testing] after the week of Feb 5th

Opinions? ideas?

I hope everybody could chip in and help on this task. Last one took too much in my opinion -- Ionuț

Jan de Groot

5:21 p.m.

On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 15:06 -0200, Ángel Velásquez wrote:

Hi,

As you know yesterday a new minor version of 5.12 branch of perl were released.

I've recently rebuilt perl 5.12.2 which is in [testing] waiting for signoff to fix a little bug with building with gcc 4.5.

So, basicly we have to do the rebuild that we did the last month again for some packages, I can work with this if Kevin isn't available (cc'ing him) so ideally IMO we can start the rebuild of perl dependencies into [staging] then get into [testing] after the week of Feb 5th

Opinions? ideas?

Is the rebuild really required? Last time the rebuild list just contained nearly all perl modules, also the ones that didn't need a rebuild but that were nice to get converted to arch=any.

Ángel Velásquez

5:46 p.m.

2011/1/27 Jan de Groot :

On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 15:06 -0200, Ángel Velásquez wrote:

...
Hi,

As you know yesterday a new minor version of 5.12 branch of perl were released.

I've recently rebuilt perl 5.12.2 which is in [testing] waiting for signoff to fix a little bug with building with gcc 4.5.

So, basicly we have to do the rebuild that we did the last month again for some packages, I can work with this if Kevin isn't available (cc'ing him) so ideally IMO we can start the rebuild of perl dependencies into [staging] then get into [testing] after the week of Feb 5th

Opinions? ideas?

Is the rebuild really required? Last time the rebuild list just contained nearly all perl modules, also the ones that didn't need a rebuild but that were nice to get converted to arch=any.

Isn't needed for many libraries, and yes, if we all work in this, we can improve Arch perl stuff and save some mb on our mirrors (and make our perl users happy), I will do the rebuild this night, and tomorrow or weekend (sometimes I need to work or sleep) I hope to have done with the list of packages that are needed to be rebuilt, so, we can go filtering that list and converting some packages to any. cc'ing Kevin again [ping] -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Developer / Trusted User Linux Counter: #359909 http://www.angvp.com

Allan McRae

7:42 p.m.

On 28/01/11 03:46, Ángel Velásquez wrote:

2011/1/27 Jan de Groot:

...
On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 15:06 -0200, Ángel Velásquez wrote:

...
Hi,

As you know yesterday a new minor version of 5.12 branch of perl were released.

I've recently rebuilt perl 5.12.2 which is in [testing] waiting for signoff to fix a little bug with building with gcc 4.5.

So, basicly we have to do the rebuild that we did the last month again for some packages, I can work with this if Kevin isn't available (cc'ing him) so ideally IMO we can start the rebuild of perl dependencies into [staging] then get into [testing] after the week of Feb 5th

Opinions? ideas?

...
Is the rebuild really required? Last time the rebuild list just contained nearly all perl modules, also the ones that didn't need a rebuild but that were nice to get converted to arch=any.

Isn't needed for many libraries, and yes, if we all work in this, we can improve Arch perl stuff and save some mb on our mirrors (and make our perl users happy), I will do the rebuild this night, and tomorrow or weekend (sometimes I need to work or sleep) I hope to have done with the list of packages that are needed to be rebuilt, so, we can go filtering that list and converting some packages to any.

cc'ing Kevin again [ping]

I still do not understand why the rebuild is required? Are there genuine breakages going from perl-5.12.2 to perl-5.12.3 and where are these coming from. Upstream make strong statements about maintaining binary compatibility between minor releases, so is it something we are doing to the perl package that requires these? Allan

Ángel Velásquez

31 Jan 31 Jan

2:34 p.m.

2011/1/27 Allan McRae :

I still do not understand why the rebuild is required? Are there genuine breakages going from perl-5.12.2 to perl-5.12.3 and where are these coming from. Upstream make strong statements about maintaining binary compatibility between minor releases, so is it something we are doing to the perl package that requires these?

<snip> Though some packages (dvdrip for example) will broke with this release -my bad-, but I tested some of them and works fine, I've updated the perl package (now is in [testing] since doesn't need a rebuild), so I will start the signoff thread. -- Angel Velásquez angvp @ irc.freenode.net Arch Linux Developer / Trusted User Linux Counter: #359909 http://www.angvp.com

4828

Age (days ago)

4832

Last active (days ago)

Download

5 comments

4 participants

tags

participants (4)

Allan McRae
Ionuț Bîru
Jan de Groot
Ángel Velásquez