[bcc: to re@] Considering the amount of changes between 4.x and 5.x, and the performance issues of the latter, I think I can safely predict that RELENG_4 will be around for a long time after the RELENG_5 branch. While I understand that some will resist making RELENG_4 any more useful than it currently is (to encourage users to move to 5.x), I think there is one issue that should be addressed: the in-tree version of Perl. -STABLE currently has 5.005_03, which is four years old and noticeably incompatible with newer versions in at least some respects; the most common stumbling block in my experience being the new, safer syntax for open(), which 5.005_03 does not support. "Install Perl from ports" is not a good answer unless we decide here and now to remove Perl completely from -STABLE. Otherwise, we are practically guaranteed that a certain percentage of RELENG_4 users (more and more as time goes on and 5.005_03 becomes even more antiquated) will consistently forget to build world with NOPERL. I would therefore like to suggest that the version of Perl in the -STABLE tree be upgraded to 5.6.1, which is old enough to be known- good (and not deviate too much from 5.005_03) and yet new enough to incoroporate some of the more useful improvements to have appeared since 1999. If memory serves, it also takes significantly less time to build than 5.8.0. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 03:10:09PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:> I would therefore like to suggest that the version of Perl in the > -STABLE tree be upgraded to 5.6.1, which is old enough to be known- > good (and not deviate too much from 5.005_03) and yet new enough to > incoroporate some of the more useful improvements to have appeared > since 1999. If memory serves, it also takes significantly less time > to build than 5.8.0.I would also like to see this happen. I think the 5.6.1 upgrade should have already happened in -STABLE, but it's better late than never. - Murray
> Also, it has been announced that a future release of the perl DBI > extension will require at least perl 5.6.1.mod_perl for Apache2 has already abandoned 5.00x.
On Thu, 15 May 2003, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:> [bcc: to re@] > > Considering the amount of changes between 4.x and 5.x, and the > performance issues of the latter, I think I can safely predict that > RELENG_4 will be around for a long time after the RELENG_5 branch.Agreed.> While I understand that some will resist making RELENG_4 any more > useful than it currently is (to encourage users to move to 5.x), I > think there is one issue that should be addressed: the in-tree version > of Perl. -STABLE currently has 5.005_03, which is four years old and > noticeably incompatible with newer versions in at least some respects; > the most common stumbling block in my experience being the new, safer > syntax for open(), which 5.005_03 does not support.Let's not lose track of the fact that for most things, 5.005_03 works perfectly fine. The fact that the "latest and greatest" of everything doesn't always work with it is simply a sign of the growing influence of the bleeding edge linux folks on open source development. I spend a non-trivial amount of time on my perl-affected ports making sure that they still work with 5.005_03, and generally the changes necessary are quite small.> "Install Perl from ports" is not a good answer unless we decide here > and now to remove Perl completely from -STABLE. Otherwise, we are > practically guaranteed that a certain percentage of RELENG_4 users > (more and more as time goes on and 5.005_03 becomes even more > antiquated) will consistently forget to build world with NOPERL.Personally, I don't think our users are that stupid, especially the ones that really depend on perl. Also, the "damage" done by an installworld that includes perl is quite easily undone. I also think that this change would break faith with those users of RELENG_4 that were promised that the perl in that branch would never be upgraded. We don't even HAVE a 5.005_03 port, so those who depend on it would be left in the dust. I vigorously oppose this plan. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection