A couple of requests for FC-6

Robin Norwood rnorwood at redhat.com
Mon Sep 18 15:29:50 UTC 2006

Jan Pazdziora <jpazdziora at redhat.com> writes:


>> I thought the FC-4 change was done because 5.8.6 was not binary
>> compatible with modules built for 5.8.2 and earlier.  Perl changed
>> binary module compatibility at 5.8.3.  All versions since then have
>> maintained binary module compatibility.  The FC-3 perl 5.8.5 had a bug
>> in that it included the MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.2 and earlier and could have
>> loaded incompatible modules.
>> How big is the performance boost?
> Checking
> 	use DBI;
> using
> 	strace perl -MDBI -e 1 2>&1 | egrep '5.8.[34]' | wc -l
> shows 240 stat64's, all coming from searches in site_perl and
> vendor_perl directories. For -MCGI it's 164.
> However: what happens if the user was upgrading from older perls and
> still has some (presumably nonstandard) modules in these paths? Will
> the %post somehow move them to newer directories?

I'm not really sure how that would work - has this been done in the
past?  It would be tricky in the first place to tell which ones are
'nonstandard' - I guess 'not owned by an rpm, and wouldn't be copied
over a file owned by an rpm' would be a good heuristic to start with.
That seems a little bit more magic than is healthy for a %post script.

OTOH, I'd rather not break everyone's perl modules.


Robin Norwood
Red Hat, Inc.

"The Sage does nothing, yet nothing remains undone."
-Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching

More information about the Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list