[arch-dev-public] Fixing Perl 5.10.0
kpiche at rogers.com
Tue Jul 7 23:14:39 EDT 2009
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
> 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:
> 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
> NB: the Debian patch takes care of FS#13901
> BTW, any opinion on FS#10971 and FS#13808 ?
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. Piche <kpiche at rogers.com>
More information about the arch-dev-public