[aur-general] perl 5.10 is there
*Perl 5.10 is now in core.* I have started my perl commit/upload orgy... Sergej, please upload perl-libxml, perl-libxml-common, perl-net-dbus and perl-xml-rss as priority, because until it is done, all pkgs that depend on them (I have some) will be non-functional! Since I have built them for both architectures anyway, I could take care of them, if you want. Best, F
Firmicus wrote:
*Perl 5.10 is now in core.* I have started my perl commit/upload orgy...
Sergej, please upload perl-libxml, perl-libxml-common, perl-net-dbus and perl-xml-rss as priority, because until it is done, all pkgs that depend on them (I have some) will be non-functional! Since I have built them for both architectures anyway, I could take care of them, if you want.
I will add perl-term-progressbar, perl-tk-tablematrix and perl-www-mechanize to that list. In fact, if you want I can maintain these as only my package (xmltv) uses them. Allan
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Firmicus <Firmicus@gmx.net> wrote:
*Perl 5.10 is now in core.* I have started my perl commit/upload orgy...
Great. ATM I can't update my three packages (perl-gtk2-mozembed, perl-gstreamer and perl-gstreamer-interfaces) because they all need glib-perl at least at 1.180, while we only have 1.162 in our repos. For the record, the latest version is 1.181. Should I wait for a glib-perl update (aka: will it be done in the next few hours) or is it better if I rebuild the current versions even though they aren't up to date? Corrado.
bardo a écrit :
On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Firmicus <Firmicus@gmx.net> wrote:
*Perl 5.10 is now in core.* I have started my perl commit/upload orgy...
Great. ATM I can't update my three packages (perl-gtk2-mozembed, perl-gstreamer and perl-gstreamer-interfaces) because they all need glib-perl at least at 1.180, while we only have 1.162 in our repos. For the record, the latest version is 1.181. Should I wait for a glib-perl update (aka: will it be done in the next few hours) or is it better if I rebuild the current versions even though they aren't up to date?
Corrado.
Mmm, I am not sure why glib-perl in core is at 1.162 and not 1.181. I am cc'ing this to Kevin. It could well be that there are some problems between perl 5.10 and the more recent stable versions of perl-gtk2. In the meanwhile please do upgrade the latest versions that build with gtk2-perl 1.162 instead of the newest ones. Better to have working packages than broken ones ;-) F
Great. ATM I can't update my three packages (perl-gtk2-mozembed, perl-gstreamer and perl-gstreamer-interfaces) because they all need glib-perl at least at 1.180, while we only have 1.162 in our repos. For the record, the latest version is 1.181. Should I wait for a glib-perl update (aka: will it be done in the next few hours) or is it better if I rebuild the current versions even though they aren't up to date?
Corrado.
Update: I have just built and installed the latest stable versions of gtk2-perl, glib-perl and cairo-perl. They seem to work OK. (I have tested it with a perl-gtk2 application of mine). So I have flagged all three packages out-of-date. F
Firmicus a écrit :
*Perl 5.10 is now in core.* I have started my perl commit/upload orgy...
Sergej, please upload perl-libxml, perl-libxml-common, perl-net-dbus and perl-xml-rss as priority, because until it is done, all pkgs that depend on them (I have some) will be non-functional! Since I have built them for both architectures anyway, I could take care of them, if you want.
Best,
F
BTW I have added my new PKGBUILD-perl.proto to the root of our cvs repo. See http://cvs.archlinux.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/?cvsroot=AUR&only_with_tag=CURRENT
Hello, On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:54:38 +0100 Firmicus <Firmicus@gmx.net> wrote:
*Perl 5.10 is now in core.* I have started my perl commit/upload orgy...
Sergej, please upload perl-libxml, perl-libxml-common, perl-net-dbus and perl-xml-rss as priority, because until it is done, all pkgs that depend on them (I have some) will be non-functional! Since I have built them for both architectures anyway, I could take care of them, if you want.
Best,
F
I'm not sure if "common users" are or aren't supposed to edit the wiki and since I've actually never edited any wiki I won't try (at least until I'm told to). But anyway - shouldn't the following part of http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Perl_Policy be now removed? 'The version of perl 5.8.8 in the core repository does not reflect this policy. This policy is reflected in the next release of the perl 5.10.0 package now in the testing repository. Please do not use convert or create new perl module packages yet until perl 5.10.0-2 is released. This policy represents a major change in way Arch handles perl so expect some rough edges. For a draft proposal of a current “perl packaging standard” see instead Perl_Package_Guidelines.' As for http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Perl_Package_Guidelines - that should perhaps be removed completely or at least marked as obsolete with a link to Perl Policy page? Ondrej -- S pozdravem Ondřej Kučera
participants (4)
-
Allan McRae
-
bardo
-
Firmicus
-
Ondřej Kučera