[arch-dev-public] Fixing Perl 5.10.0

K. Piche kpiche at rogers.com
Mon Jul 13 23:18:41 EDT 2009

On Thu, 2009-07-09 at 21:03 +0200, Firmicus wrote:
> 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 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.

> > The libperl.a/so problem (10971) needs to be fixed - I dropped the ball
> > on that one.
> >   
> Ok. This can be deferred.

I'll look at it after you put package out.

> > 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.

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.

> F
K. Piche <kpiche at rogers.com>

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list