"Chris Weyl" <cweyl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Along these lines... Do we have a plan for including 5.10 in > F-9/devel? With the RC out, it sounds like 5.10 will GA > not-too-horribly-soon from now, and we're at a point in devel where > it's probably the Right Time to think about bumping from 5.8 to 5.10. > > http://perlbuzz.com/project-hum/2007/10/perl-5100-nears-code-freeze-release.html Now that progress has been made on dividing up the other packages, I played around for a few minutes with hacking a perl 5.10.0 spec file based upon our 5.8.8 one. Many of you have probably already done the same, but here's what I found: o Most of our patches to 5.8.8 are either applied in 5.10.0, or fixed differently. - Many due to spot submitting all of them upstream when he did the package review. Spot rocks. - The others seem to be RH/Fedora specific, including the diddling we do with the path for the perlmodcompat stuff. 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? o A bunch of formerly CPAN modules have been moved into core. Here's an incomplete list: perl-Module-CoreList perl-version perl-IO-Compress-Base perl-IO-Compress-Gzip perl-IO-Compress-Zip perl-IO-Compress-Zlib perl-Archive-Tar perl-Module-Build perl-Compress-Zlib perl-IO-Zlib perl-Compress-Gzip perl-Module-Build perl-Compress-Raw-Zlib perl-ExtUtils-CBuilder perl-Pod-Simple perl-ExtUtils-ParseXS perl-Pod-Escapes - 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. o Some of the packages that we split into subpackages for 5.8.8 didn't change version in 5.10.0: perl-ExtUtils-MakeMaker-6.30 perl-Test-Harness-2.56 perl-CPAN-1.76 perl-ExtUtils-Embed-1.26 perl-Test-Simple-0.62 This means that the release field for the 5.8.8 packages will be 31 (or whatever), while the release field for 5.10.0 will probably start at 1...meaning the 5.8.8 versions will win vercomp. How to fix it? - Start at whatever the last perl.5.8.8 release is + 1? (Yuck!) - Epoch (double yuck!) - Something smarter? (Smarter would be good) o How to develop the spec file? Shall we throw one up on the wiki somewhere for easier editing? -RN > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Steven Bakker <sb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Nov 23, 2007 2:04 AM > Subject: Re: AWOL: jpo > To: Development discussions related to Fedora <fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:41:25 -0700 Richi Plana wrote: > >> As much as I love Perl and I prefer it over all existing scripting >> languages I'm familiar with, it's hard to get excited about its future >> since the developers are extremely quiet about it. > > They're probably quiet about it because they prefer coding over talking :-) > > Perl 5.10-RC1 has been unleashed recently[1], full of nice new > features[2], borrowing some from (the still-vaporware) Perl6 (named > capture buffers!). > > [1] http://search.cpan.org/~rgarcia/perl-5.10.0-RC1/ > [2] http://www.slideshare.net/rjbs/perl-510-for-people-who-arent-totally-insane > > -- Steven > > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > > > > -- > Chris Weyl > Ex astris, scientia -- Robin Norwood Red Hat, Inc. "The Sage does nothing, yet nothing remains undone." -Lao Tzu, Te Tao Ching -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list Fedora-perl-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list
