At 2:01 AM -0800 11/14/02, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002, Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote:
Why can't someone with a fresh stable do an ls -R /
And someone with a fresh current do the same?
Because that's only part of the story. What about people updating
from other supported "source
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 06:01:46AM +1100, Andrew Kenneth Milton wrote:
> Why can't someone with a fresh stable do an ls -R /
> And someone with a fresh current do the same?
Because that's only part of the story. What about people updating
from other supported "source upgrade" versions (4.0, 4.1,
At 10:17 PM -0800 11/12/02, Doug Barton wrote:
David O'Brien wrote:
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:58:44AM +, Mark Murray wrote:
> IMVHO, the perl wrapper should be removed altogether, and the
> perl port's "use.port" symlink-creating feature should be used
> instead.
> Do we have consens
+---[ Garance A Drosihn ]--
| At 10:58 PM + 11/12/02, Mark Murray wrote:
| > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 08:15:09AM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
| >>
| >> > I would rather have some explicit list of filenames where we have
| >> > good reason to delete them, and then ada
> >Anyone have a trash-box that we can do a 4-STABLE --> 5-CURRENT
> >upgrade on to diff the file list?
> >
> >I have a box that I'd rather not trash, but if need be I'll use that.
>
> This is what I am planning to do. I am a little short on free time
> right now, what is the "timetable for need"
> Where are we with making lang/perl5's package default selected in
> sysinstall?
We are discussing it under your excellent chairmanship :-).
> While I've been opposed to the inclusion of the wrapper since before it
> was imported, I think its removal would be well accompanied by the
> sysinstall
On (2002/11/12 22:17), Doug Barton wrote:
> In case another vote is needed, I've always been opposed to the wrapper.
> tobez and I put some work into getting the use.perl script in the port
> to DTRT shortly after the demise of base perl, and I'm still willing to
> help fine tune it if needed.
I
David O'Brien wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:58:44AM +, Mark Murray wrote:
> > IMVHO, the perl wrapper should be removed altogether, and the
> > perl port's "use.port" symlink-creating feature should be used
> > instead.
>
> Do we have consensus on this? The perl wrapper really isn't
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 10:58:12PM +, Mark Murray wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 08:15:09AM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> >
> > > I would rather have some explicit list of filenames where we have
> > > good reason to delete them, and then adapt the above script to at
> > > least tell t
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 08:15:09AM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>
> > I would rather have some explicit list of filenames where we have
> > good reason to delete them, and then adapt the above script to at
> > least tell the user about the remaining files. Perhaps even delete
> > them, but o
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 08:15:09AM -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> I would rather have some explicit list of filenames where we have
> good reason to delete them, and then adapt the above script to at
> least tell the user about the remaining files. Perhaps even delete
> them, but only *after*
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:34:23PM +, Mark Murray wrote:
> > > Do we have consensus on this? The perl wrapper really isn't working out
> > > for all the cases I hoped it would when I committed it.
> >
> > Yes, I think so. DES (The author?) doesn't mind. I'm for removal and so is
> > Kris.
>
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:34:23PM +, Mark Murray wrote:
> > Do we have consensus on this? The perl wrapper really isn't working out
> > for all the cases I hoped it would when I committed it.
>
> Yes, I think so. DES (The author?) doesn't mind. I'm for removal and so is
> Kris.
Why does DES
At 11:13 PM + 11/8/02, Mark Murray wrote:
> > I mean *all* the cruft -- old modules and config files,
> > deprecated binaries and man pages, even old shlibs if it's safe.
>
> I agree with you, and I was giving an example that a lesser
> form of this is already required during the upgrade.
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:58:44AM +, Mark Murray wrote:
> > IMVHO, the perl wrapper should be removed altogether, and the
> > perl port's "use.port" symlink-creating feature should be used
> > instead.
>
> Do we have consensus on this? The perl wrapper really isn't working out
> for all th
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:58:44AM +, Mark Murray wrote:
> IMVHO, the perl wrapper should be removed altogether, and the
> perl port's "use.port" symlink-creating feature should be used
> instead.
Do we have consensus on this? The perl wrapper really isn't working out
for all the cases I hope
> > I mean *all* the cruft -- old modules and config files, deprecated binaries
> > and man pages, even old shlibs if it's safe.
>
> I agree with you, and I was giving an example that a lesser form of
> this is already required during the upgrade.
>
> It would be VERY useful if someone could deve
Ray Kohler wrote:
> > Yes, it's already a mandatory step (remove old includes, or you can't
> > build C++ programs).
>
> I mean *all* the cruft -- old modules and config files, deprecated binaries
> and man pages, even old shlibs if it's safe.
You need a registration system which can subsume all
CTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 06:54:37AM -0500, Ray Kohler wrote:
> >
> > > Then we're back to the problem of there being a complete stale perl in
> > > the base syste
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 8 16:15:05 2002
> Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 13:02:58 -0800
> From: Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Ray Kohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
>
On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 06:54:37AM -0500, Ray Kohler wrote:
> Then we're back to the problem of there being a complete stale perl in
> the base system after a 4.X->5.X upgrade, but then, I've always thought
> that "clean out the cruft" ought to be a mandatory step in upgrading.
Yes, it's already
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 8 04:15:04 2002
> To: Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: perl5.6.1 wrapper
> Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 08:58:44 +
> From: Mark Murray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> IMVHO, the perl wrapper s
IMVHO, the perl wrapper should be removed altogether, and the
perl port's "use.port" symlink-creating feature should be used
instead.
M
> Can someone explain why the perl wrapper needs to be hardlinked to
> perl5.6.1?
>
> The problem I am seeing is this:
>
> USE_PERL5=yes in a port adds the fol
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 05:47:51PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Can someone explain why the perl wrapper needs to be hardlinked to
> perl5.6.1?
revision 1.5
date: 2002-06-07 18:55:42; author: obrien; state: Exp; lines: +1 -0
Install a "perl5.6.1" wrapper. I think
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 05:47:51PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Can someone explain why the perl wrapper needs to be hardlinked to
> perl5.6.1?
>
> The problem I am seeing is this:
>
> USE_PERL5=yes in a port adds the following BUILD_DEPENDS:
>
> enigma# make -V BUILD_DEPENDS
> perl5.6.1:/usr/p
25 matches
Mail list logo
