* perl-5.9.5 @ 2007-06-21 1:39 Reini Urban 2007-06-21 2:13 ` perl-5.9.5 Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Reini Urban @ 2007-06-21 1:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: CygWin-Apps 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: perl-5.9.5 2007-06-21 1:39 perl-5.9.5 Reini Urban @ 2007-06-21 2:13 ` Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes 2007-06-21 6:18 ` perl-5.9.5 djh 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes @ 2007-06-21 2:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin-apps 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: perl-5.9.5 2007-06-21 2:13 ` perl-5.9.5 Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes @ 2007-06-21 6:18 ` djh 2007-06-21 8:39 ` perl-5.9.5 Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes 2007-06-21 18:21 ` perl-5.9.5 Reini Urban 0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: djh @ 2007-06-21 6:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin-apps > 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,. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: perl-5.9.5 2007-06-21 6:18 ` perl-5.9.5 djh @ 2007-06-21 8:39 ` Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes 2007-06-21 19:42 ` perl-5.9.5 Reini Urban 2007-06-21 18:21 ` perl-5.9.5 Reini Urban 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes @ 2007-06-21 8:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin-apps 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: perl-5.9.5 2007-06-21 8:39 ` perl-5.9.5 Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes @ 2007-06-21 19:42 ` Reini Urban 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Reini Urban @ 2007-06-21 19:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin-apps 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/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: perl-5.9.5 2007-06-21 6:18 ` perl-5.9.5 djh 2007-06-21 8:39 ` perl-5.9.5 Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes @ 2007-06-21 18:21 ` Reini Urban 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Reini Urban @ 2007-06-21 18:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: [ML] CygWin-Apps 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-06-21 19:42 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2007-06-21 1:39 perl-5.9.5 Reini Urban 2007-06-21 2:13 ` perl-5.9.5 Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes 2007-06-21 6:18 ` perl-5.9.5 djh 2007-06-21 8:39 ` perl-5.9.5 Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes 2007-06-21 19:42 ` perl-5.9.5 Reini Urban 2007-06-21 18:21 ` perl-5.9.5 Reini Urban
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).