Re: revert perl-5.26.0 update?

[Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il>]

On July 27, 2017 9:11:57 PM GMT+03:00, Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:03:50AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Hi Efraim,
>> 
>> Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> skribis:
>> 
>> > There's a lot of perl related build failures. Maybe it would be
>better
>> > to revert the perl update and work on updating perl and all the
>perl
>> > modules separately. It seems to me that there are a large number of
>perl
>> > packages that haven't been updated in quite some time.
>> 
>> Reverting is not an option at this point IMO.  There are several
>Date::*
>> modules required by Biber that FTBFS and need an update, indeed, but
>I
>> think we should rather find a way to fix them (I spent a bit of time
>on
>> it but then moved on to something else.)
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>
>I'll work on building Biber now.
>
>Are there any other failing Perl modules that we *need* to fix? I think
>we can't achieve zero regressions from an update like this, especially
>since so many of these modules seem to lack an active upstream. So, if
>Guix users care about them, they should speak up now :)

Not as a reason to put it off, but Debian is beginning their Perl transition and I've noticed some of the modules I've looked at have Debian developers as the upstream.

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.