time for perl 5.10.x in devel?

Robin Norwood rnorwood at redhat.com
Thu Dec 6 16:14:25 UTC 2007

"Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa at redhat.com> writes:

> On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 15:32 -0500, Robin Norwood wrote:
>> o Speaking of the perlmodcompat stuff - is 5.10.0 a good time to get rid
>>   of it?  Or we be kicking ourselves when 5.10.x is released and we need
>>   to rebuild everything?
> I think we should try to drop it. Upstream perl doesn't really like that
> we're carrying it, and it doesn't have a significant benefit these days.
> If we get a huge uproar, it shouldn't be too hard to enable it later.

Alright, I'll see what changes I need to make to yank it out.

>>   - shall we just do these as subpackages?  Are there any that would be
>>     more appropriate leaving in the main perl package?  I assume we'll
>>     want to keep the perl-core convention Requiring the new subpackages.
> This seems reasonable to me, but I know that the subpackages are
> controversial for some people.

Yup - if anyone doesn't like it...speak up.

>> o Some of the packages that we split into subpackages for 5.8.8 didn't
>> change version in 5.10.0:
>> perl-CPAN-1.76
> This is baffling. Upstream CPAN is at 1.9205, I thought for sure this
> would get updated in 5.10.0. :P

Yeah, as Rafael points out, this was my mistake.  If there are any that
are lower/the same in 5.10.0, I'll bump the epoch unless/until someone
figures something better out.

>> o How to develop the spec file?  Shall we throw one up on the wiki
>> somewhere for easier editing?
> I'd planned to start working on it when I got back to the US and put it
> on the Fedora wiki for commentss, but don't feel like you need to wait
> for me (I'm in the middle of FOSS.in at the moment).

I'll do that today.


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