<div dir="ltr">I sadly have not had enough time to work on cpan-mp, I've been mostly learning the internals of macports first. But yeah, like I said on that other thread, the latest perl is enough. Back when 5.x stalled because everyone thought 6 was coming out it was ok to stay still. But now we get new Perls regularly.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div>—Mark<br>_______________________<br>Mark E. Anderson <<a href="mailto:emer@emer.net" target="_blank">emer@emer.net</a>><br></div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Mojca Miklavec <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mojca@macports.org" target="_blank">mojca@macports.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="">On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote:<br>
> On Jun 10, 2014, at 2:21 PM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> I would be really grateful if someone would be<br>
>> willing to look into the above mentioned ticket. We would need a<br>
>> slight modification of the configure/build scripts.<br>
><br>
> That change seems reasonable to me, but it would be worthwhile to look at what other packaging systems do (and/or to follow ryan's advice and talk to the perl devs about it)<br>
<br>
</div>A while back I asked on stackoverflow and got a suggestion to install perlbrew.<br>
<br>
(<a href="http://stackoverflow.com/questions/23270656/how-to-install-perl-without-sub-version-number-in-path-lib-perl5-5-x-y-lib" target="_blank">http://stackoverflow.com/questions/23270656/how-to-install-perl-without-sub-version-number-in-path-lib-perl5-5-x-y-lib</a>)<br>
<br>
But yes, we should ask that. (I nevertheless made a change in perl<br>
5.20 to see how it works.)<br>
<div class=""><br>
>> Other questions are still open. (One of the "complaints" about the<br>
>> current situation [ignoring the situation itself] is that if I go<br>
>> ahead and start modifying maintained p5-foo ports, maintainers will<br>
>> start complaining.<br>
><br>
> I don't see that as a 'problem' (more works as intended) - you shouldn't make changes to a port someone else maintains without communicating with them (unless the port is 'broken').<br>
<br>
</div>Yes, I understand that. But in the context of perl ports this *is* a<br>
problem. The only reasonable solution would be to open a ticket, CC<br>
all maintainers of all thousand perl packages, ask them to fix/upgrade<br>
their ports in the next 3-10 days (or argue why the ports shouldn't be<br>
changed), and that all other ports could be changed based on<br>
maintainer timeout at any time. Opening thousand tickets just to<br>
request an update seems like an overkill.<br>
<br>
(But yes, something needs to be done to facilitate automatic upgrades,<br>
at least for ports where no special treatment is needed.)<br>
<div class=""><br>
> either we get the maintainers to update their ports, add openmaintainer, or we follow the port abandonment procedure and get the port updated to nomaintainer.<br>
<br>
</div>Or that.<br>
<div class=""><br>
> maybe eventually get some level 'automatic' support of modules from CPAN without having to write/update portfiles for each module when most of them will 'just work'?)<br>
<br>
</div>Yes, that would be ideal. It just needs work.<br>
<br>
Btw: Perl 5.16 is no longer supported.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Mojca<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
macports-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org">macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>