[arch-dev-public] perl 5.12 status?

[K. Piche]

On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 15:15 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 29/07/10 12:17, K. Piche wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 13:58 -0400, K. Piche wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 09:18 +0200, Firmicus wrote:
> >>> On 23/07/2010 03:16, Allan McRae wrote:
> >>>> What is going on with the perl-5.12 update in [testing]?  Every few days I see rebuilds
> >>>> for a couple of packages with "perl-5.12 rebuild" as the reason yet we have no rebuild
> >>>> list. How much more needs done? Is there any schedule for this making it to the main repos?
> >>>>
> >>>> Allan
> >>>>
> >>> I have asked the same question to Kevin a few days ago, saying I could help him if needed.
> >>> He replied on Tuesday, saying he was going to push it out on Wednesday. I replied that he
> >>> needs to rebuild perl because I fixed the provides array in trunk since his last build
> >>> (which was in May I think), and that he also needs to re-consider this:
> >>> http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/13808
> >>>
> >>> Have not heard back from him, but hopefully all this perl stuff will get out of testing soon.
> >>>
> >>> F
> >>
> >> I rebuilt perl with the updated provides array.  I want to get this out
> >> of testing so I'll deal with the stupid/annoying FHS bug later.
> >>
> >> If there's no objections I'll migrate perl tomorrow.
> >>
> >> k
> >
> > Speaking of which, I recall emails about removing the testing2* but they
> > still exist so this is still the official method?
> 
> testing2x is the way to go.  If you have switched some packages to 
> arch=any you may need some intervention (but I am really not sure...)
> 
> > Also, I'd like to ditch the gift* packages - how is something moved to
> > AUR?  I didn't see anything on the devwiki.
> 
> Why? The normal procedure is to post saying you are removing them and 
> why and perhaps give someone else (including TUs) the chance to adopt them.
> 
> In essence, you remove the package and manually upload to the AUR 
> (remember to orphan it there).

In retrospect that should have been obvious.  :)  I figured there was
some script.

> Allan

Thanks,

k


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