perl-5.9.5

perl-5.9.5

[Reini Urban]

I almost have that ready, I just wait for some of my cygwin patches 
upstream.

With current blead (5.9.5) I get now the same number of failing tests as 
with 5.8
../lib/Net/Ping/t/500_ping_icmp.t                2    1  50.00%  2
being the only leftover.

How should we name it so that users can experiment with that? 
Side-by-side to perl-5.8.8

I would suggest perl5.9-5.9.5-1.
And when perl5.10 comes out as perl-5.10-1, the development version can 
switch to perl5.11-5.11-1.
I couldn't find similar cases ion any distro.
They just allow perl-5.9.4 besides perl-5.8.8.

perl-devel seems to be misleading, maybe perl-exp or perl-experimental.

I also enabled -DDEBUGGING, esp. for the new regex engine.
I don't think people want 5.9 to use for the enhanced speed, mainly to 
test the new perl6 and regex features for the upcoming 5.10.

For 5.9 I also added libxml to vendor, not only expat.
And I pulled in all CPAN and CPAN::Reporter dependencies.
Originally I wanted to get the vendor libs smaller, but a current CPAN 
is really important, and CPAN::Reporter also.
-- 
Reini

Re: perl-5.9.5

[Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes]

On Wed, June 20, 2007 6:39 pm, Reini Urban wrote:
> I almost have that ready, I just wait for some of my cygwin patches
> upstream.
>
> With current blead (5.9.5) I get now the same number of failing tests as
> with 5.8 ../lib/Net/Ping/t/500_ping_icmp.t                2    1  50.00%  2
>  being the only leftover.
>
> How should we name it so that users can experiment with that?
> Side-by-side to perl-5.8.8

Since 5.9.5 is basically a beta 5.10.0, I would actually make it
a test version of a new perl5.10 package (so perl5.10-5.9.5-1).
When 5.10.0 is released, the package would be updated to
perl5.10-5.10.0-1 and move to current.

> I also enabled -DDEBUGGING, esp. for the new regex engine.

Different routines with DEBUGGGING enabled are swapped in
when you do use re "debug", so that shouldn't be necessary.
Note that DEBUGGING on vs. off are not binary-compatible,
so once you pick a state, you're stuck with it unless you
want to make people recompile XS modules they've built.

Re: perl-5.9.5

[djh]

> Since 5.9.5 is basically a beta 5.10.0, I would actually make it
> a test version of a new perl5.10 package (so perl5.10-5.9.5-1).

Since 5.9.5 is 5.9.5, you should leave it as it is and not
give it some whimsical name.  Such is that which causes confusion.
It is better to keep standards and names, rather than invent them.

> When 5.10.0 is released, the package would be updated to
> perl5.10-5.10.0-1 and move to current.

When 5.10.0 is released then we have 5.10.0.

I believe that keeping to the real names and not inventing others, which would
simply serve to confuse people.

This has been done before, with other packages and does beget confusion.

Respect for a packages, name and version number, should be considered important.
Or is there some fundamental reason why, one needs to use a different
name other than the original.

cheers,.

Re: perl-5.9.5

[Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes]

On Wed, June 20, 2007 11:18 pm, djh wrote:
>> Since 5.9.5 is basically a beta 5.10.0, I would actually make it
>> a test version of a new perl5.10 package (so perl5.10-5.9.5-1).
>
> Since 5.9.5 is 5.9.5, you should leave it as it is and not
> give it some whimsical name.  Such is that which causes confusion. It is
> better to keep standards and names, rather than invent them.
>
>> When 5.10.0 is released, the package would be updated to
>> perl5.10-5.10.0-1 and move to current.
>
> When 5.10.0 is released then we have 5.10.0.
>
>
> I believe that keeping to the real names and not inventing others, which
> would simply serve to confuse people.
>
> This has been done before, with other packages and does beget confusion.
>
>
> Respect for a packages, name and version number, should be considered
> important. Or is there some fundamental reason why, one needs to use a
> different name other than the original.

1) perl 5.8.x and the impending 5.10.x (currently under development
as 5.9.x, a series of version numbers reserved for development, aka
experimental, use) are binary incompatible with each other.
Any user who installs extra modules will be able to use those
modules only for the version used to build them.  So,

2) the perl package can only be used for one of the two.  It's
reasonable to provide another package with a different name for
one of the two, and since the existing perl package is perl 5.8.x,
5.9.x/5.10.x needs a different package name.  But,

3) there is no compelling reason I can thing of for introducing
separate perl5.9.5 and perl5.10 packages, since the former will
be obsolete with the release of 5.10.0, in 2 or at most 3 months.
So it makes sense to me to release the test package for development
version leading up to 5.10.0 as the perl5.10 package.  If it
were to be a non-test release, or a release that would endure
after the advent of 5.10.0, I might agree with you.

Re: perl-5.9.5

[Reini Urban]

djh schrieb:
>> Since 5.9.5 is basically a beta 5.10.0, I would actually make it
>> a test version of a new perl5.10 package (so perl5.10-5.9.5-1).
> 
> Since 5.9.5 is 5.9.5, you should leave it as it is and not
> give it some whimsical name.  Such is that which causes confusion.
> It is better to keep standards and names, rather than invent them.
> 
>> When 5.10.0 is released, the package would be updated to
>> perl5.10-5.10.0-1 and move to current.
> 
> When 5.10.0 is released then we have 5.10.0.
> 
> I believe that keeping to the real names and not inventing others, which 
> would
> simply serve to confuse people.
> 
> This has been done before, with other packages and does beget confusion.
> 
> Respect for a packages, name and version number, should be considered 
> important.
> Or is there some fundamental reason why, one needs to use a different
> name other than the original.

Yes, you didn't get the point. When you keep the same package name 
("perl") you cannot install test and curr versions together.
When you install a test release, the curr release will be uninstalled.

You talk about versions (5.8.8, 5.9.5, 5.10.0), we talk here about 
package names. We will never change the version from upstream of course.
http://cygwin.com/setup.html#naming
-- 
Reini

Re: perl-5.9.5

[Reini Urban]

Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes schrieb:
> On Wed, June 20, 2007 11:18 pm, djh wrote:
>>> Since 5.9.5 is basically a beta 5.10.0, I would actually make it
>>> a test version of a new perl5.10 package (so perl5.10-5.9.5-1).
>> Since 5.9.5 is 5.9.5, you should leave it as it is and not
>> give it some whimsical name.  Such is that which causes confusion. It is
>> better to keep standards and names, rather than invent them.
>>
>>> When 5.10.0 is released, the package would be updated to
>>> perl5.10-5.10.0-1 and move to current.
>> When 5.10.0 is released then we have 5.10.0.
>>
>>
>> I believe that keeping to the real names and not inventing others, which
>> would simply serve to confuse people.
>>
>> This has been done before, with other packages and does beget confusion.
>>
>> Respect for a packages, name and version number, should be considered
>> important. Or is there some fundamental reason why, one needs to use a
>> different name other than the original.
> 
> 1) perl 5.8.x and the impending 5.10.x (currently under development
> as 5.9.x, a series of version numbers reserved for development, aka
> experimental, use) are binary incompatible with each other.
> Any user who installs extra modules will be able to use those
> modules only for the version used to build them.  So,
> 
> 2) the perl package can only be used for one of the two.  It's
> reasonable to provide another package with a different name for
> one of the two, and since the existing perl package is perl 5.8.x,
> 5.9.x/5.10.x needs a different package name.  But,
> 
> 3) there is no compelling reason I can thing of for introducing
> separate perl5.9.5 and perl5.10 packages, since the former will
> be obsolete with the release of 5.10.0, in 2 or at most 3 months.
> So it makes sense to me to release the test package for development
> version leading up to 5.10.0 as the perl5.10 package.  If it
> were to be a non-test release, or a release that would endure
> after the advent of 5.10.0, I might agree with you.

All XS modules have to be changed/recompiled anyway because they will
be moved from 5.9 to 5.10. So I see no reason to begin with perl5.10 and 
disabled -DDEBUGGING.

What to do when perl 5.10 is out?
Make perl5.{9,10} obsolete and switch back to perl? I would say so.
Anybody wants to keep old 5.8?
It's nice to have them side-by-side only for development.

So I rather want to have perl (perl-5.8.8-1) and perl5.9 
(perl5.9-5.9.5-1). Both can be installed side-by-side.
perl-5.8.8-1 is curr and perl5.9-5.9.5-1++ is test until perl-5.10-1

perl manpages will be perl5.9_manpages-5.9.5-1
I only have to find a place for the perl5.9_manpages while in test.
/usr/share/man/man{1,3} is for the 5.8 perl_manpages.
I don't like the mingw solution too much. I rather prefer to add another 
MANPATH, like /opt/perl5.9/man for these interim pages. (only for 2-3 
months)

I wrote in README
   - perl5.9 will always be only test, but can/should be used 
side-by-side to perl-5.8.x
     When 5.10 is out, it will replace perl-5.8.8, perl5.9 will be 
obsolete and switched to perl5.11
   - Access to all binaries and scripts are possible by adding the 5.9.5 
suffix.
     e.g. perl5.9.5 perldoc5.9.5 cpan5.9.5 prove5.9.5 ...
   - manpages are in /opt/perl5.9/man until 5.10 is out

-- 
Reini Urban
http://phpwiki.org/  http://murbreak.at/
http://helsinki.at/  http://spacemovie.mur.at/