[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       macports-dev
Subject:    Re: [148570] trunk/dports/devel/subversion-perlbindings/Portfile
From:       "Daniel J. Luke" <dluke () geeklair ! net>
Date:       2016-05-12 15:51:19
Message-ID: C21ACEF2-35B4-40FF-B5CD-4C46B17299FE () geeklair ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

On May 12, 2016, at 10:05 AM, Mojca Miklavec <mojca@macports.org> wrote:
> I'm really really sorry for not sending a notice upfront. (I'll try to
> get better in communicating changes next time.)

thanks :)

> A more serious question though (and it's not a rethorical one!). Let's
> assume that we would already be using a single version of Perl *now*
> and we would still be at Perl 5.22 (like we are). Someone would be
> assigned the task to upgrade to Perl 5.24, including all the 1,5 k
> dependencies that would need a revbump at least (many of which would
> in fact be broken after the switch). Then again, maintainers could not
> test their ports before all dependencies switch to 5.24. How exactly
> would you envision dealing with no-openmaintainer ports in that case?

I would say - open a ticket for the perl release that ccs all the maintainers. \
(Possibly with diff attached, although if it's just mass revbump that's probably not \
necessary). Ticket will say something like: X days from now perl5 will be upgraded to \
/latest release/ and your p5 ports will be rev-bumped.

Maintainers who were interested in testing could do so - and people would be aware of \
                the coming change.
-- 
Daniel J. Luke

_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]