[arch-dev-public] Fixing Perl 5.10.0
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 ? Best, F
Firmicus wrote:
That is an awfully big patch... I do not use perl so I have no opinion here, but fixing breakages is usually a good thing. Both the FS bug reports look sensible to me. Allan
That is an awfully big patch... I do not use perl so I have no opinion here, but fixing breakages is
Note that "only" 15% of that big patch actually affects the code. The rest concerns documentation, test files, etc. There is only one fix that I really care for, however, and it amounts to an insertion of one line in toke.c. This fix is especially needed when developping web applications with Catalyst, which I am currently doing [see http://lists.scsys.co.uk/pipermail/catalyst/2008-September/019687.html]. I have revised the patch and removed some additional Debian-specific hunks. The tarball linked to in my previous post is updated.
usually a good thing. Both the FS bug reports look sensible to me.
Allan
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 14:53 +0200, Firmicus wrote:
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>
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:
No problem. I have a GD flu this week so my perception of time is blurried ;)
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.
Same.
Would you like me to build it or are you OK?
I'll do it tonight. F
On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 21:03 +0200, Firmicus wrote:
The link that Jan provided is pretty useful: http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewvc/rpms/perl/devel/ - looks like a good many of them come from the Debian jumbo patch anyways.
I'll look at it after you put package out.
Well namcap has checks for files in non-FHS locations so I would say we care about FHS. We can move the binaries in the perl package and migrate other packages but I wouldn't call it urgent.
Would you like me to build it or are you OK?
I'll do it tonight.
Excellent. Thanks a lot.
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 14:53 +0200, Firmicus wrote:
You might want to look at fedora, they have a bunch of standalone patches, usually with descriptions or changelogs: http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewvc/rpms/perl/devel/
On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 08:43 +0200, Jan de Groot wrote:
That's great thanks, k -- K. Piche <kpiche@rogers.com>
participants (4)
-
Allan McRae
-
Firmicus
-
Jan de Groot
-
K. Piche