From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21102 invoked by alias); 29 May 2014 17:45:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 21091 invoked by uid 89); 29 May 2014 17:45:30 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.cpanel.net Received: from mx1.cpanel.net (HELO mx1.cpanel.net) (208.74.121.68) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 29 May 2014 17:45:29 +0000 Received: from ng1.cptxoffice.net ([208.74.121.102]:23181 helo=[10.1.200.77]) by mx1.cpanel.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1Wq4ON-0004g1-Cd for cygwin@cygwin.com; Thu, 29 May 2014 12:45:27 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\)) Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Updated: perl-5.18.2-1 (x86) [test] Attn Maintainers with perl reqs From: Reini Urban In-Reply-To: <871twceg2f.fsf@Rainer.invalid> Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 18:27:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8246052E-57C3-4692-AAFE-AEC52F9C1387@gmail.com> References: <871twceg2f.fsf@Rainer.invalid> To: cygwin@cygwin.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: mx1.cpanel.net: authenticated_id: reini@cpanel.net X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg00513.txt.bz2 On May 2, 2014, at 3:32 AM, Achim Gratz wrote: > Reini Urban writes: >> perl, perl_vendor, perl_manpages, perl_debugbuild >=20 > The debug package is actually named perl_debuginfo at the moment, but > perhaps it should be renamed perl-debuginfo to conform to all other > packages? probably. I also found out that several vendor packages are now separated on x86_64,= =20 so I=92ll have to split them also for 32bit. Lot more work todo for me, but= apparently some guys just went ahead. > @INC looks strange: why do you keep vendor_perl for 5.10, but not for > 5.14? Do we really want to fall back to site_perl 5.10 and 5.8 these > days? oops, vendor_perl/5.14 is missing. yes, falling back to good old arch-unspecific code is no problem and=20 saves installation time and space. and we did support those versions. still working on unexpected socketpair problems with 64bit. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple