From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Vong Subject: Re: Updating Perl to 5.23? Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 11:51:47 +0800 Message-ID: References: <87twnn3lnm.fsf@gnu.org> <20151212185205.21b7cb22@debian-netbook> 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]:33573) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a7xhN-0006Sa-RS for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 22:51:50 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a7xhM-0002L2-GY for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 22:51:49 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20151212185205.21b7cb22@debian-netbook> 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: Efraim Flashner Cc: guix-devel On 13/12/2015, Efraim Flashner wrote: > On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 21:06:53 +0800 > Alex Vong wrote: > >> On 12/12/2015, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >> > In =E2=80=98core-updates=E2=80=99 I want to fix a couple of non-determ= inism issues >> > related to Perl: >> > >> > https://bugs.debian.org/801621 >> > https://bugs.debian.org/801523 >> > >> > While at it, I thought we might as well upgrade Perl to 5.23. >> > >> > What do people think? I have no experience with Perl, so I=E2=80=99m = not sure >> > whether this is a minor upgrade, or if it would break lots of things. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Ludo=E2=80=99. >> > >> > >> >> 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? >> > > In terms of large updates, pkg-config is up to 0.29, python just hit 3.5, > and > python2 hit 2.7.11. Although in relation to odd numbers being dev release= s, > I > don't know about any of the above version changes if they're dev releases > or > not. > I think they are not. From this PEP , development releases of python are tagged with `X.Y.devN`. Also, we can apply the *Debian test*[1]. Debian packaged python 2.7.11 into unstable, so we should be fine. Debian also packaged pkg-config 0.29 , so it also be fine... > -- > Efraim Flashner =D7=90=D7=A4=D7=A8=D7=99=D7= =9D =D7=A4=D7=9C=D7=A9=D7=A0=D7=A8 > GPG key =3D A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 > Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypt= ed > [1]: We know Debian is *stable* (even unstable is not unstable, real testing goes to experimental, the worst thing happened to me was gnome-3 stopped working), so they should have done the right thing. Cheers, Alex