From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: Updating Perl to 5.23? Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 18:55:45 +0100 Message-ID: <8761031rha.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87twnn3lnm.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57857) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a7oOd-0003lb-Ai for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 12:55:52 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a7oOa-0003vz-6R for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 12:55:51 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Alex Vong's message of "Sat, 12 Dec 2015 21:06:53 +0800") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Alex Vong Cc: guix-devel Alex Vong skribis: > According to , > perl uses the version scheme such that maintenance branches (ready for > production use) are even numbers and development branches are odd > numbers. Thus, 5.23 is a development branch. From this page > , it seems Debian only > packages maintenance branches. Perhaps it is too risky to package > development branches (break a lot of things). How do you guys think? Very good point. So I guess we=E2=80=99d be targeting 5.22. Does the 5.16 =E2=86=92 5.22 switch sound reasonable? Ludo=E2=80=99.