https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936241 Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jhutz@xxxxxxx --- Comment #3 from Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@xxxxxxx> --- This is wrong. That reasoning is sound for sitearch, which contains architecture-dependent (binary) module files. It makes plenty of sense to look for such modules in an ABI-version-dependent directory; Perl has done that since 5.005 or so. It is completely inapplicable to sitelib, which contains architecture-independent modules. Such modules are non-binary and so cannot be ABI-version-dependent. They do not need to be in a versioned directory tree. This may come as a surprise, but CPAN is not everything. Lots of us have private, site-specific modules. Most of those are pure-perl. Most of them are relatively simple -- a single file, or a small tree of files. And most of them are installed by dropping files in the right place, via whatever mechanism we are using to manage hundreds or thousands of machines. They are not built on each machine, or even "built" at all -- Perl's module build system is great for modules that actually have something that need to be compiled, but way overkill for something that just needs a few files to be dropped into perl's sitelib directory. It is a huge problem for Perl to suddenly stop looking in that site-specific, version-agnostic location across an upgrade. Even if that is a major-version upgrade like RHEL8->RHEL9 (which is the first time enterprise customers saw this, and not all tha long ago on the timescale of people who manage thousands of machines supporting hundreds of applications). In fact, it's a huge problem to have to guess what is the correct location, on a per-machine basis, depending on what version of perl might be there. This is a regression. /usr/local/share/perl5 worked in RHEL7 and RHEL8; it does not work in RHEL9. Apparently the same was true with Fedora 30->31. Perhaps Red Hat is not interested in fixing this bug. But it is certainly a bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936241 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%201936241%23c3 -- _______________________________________________ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
