From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Vong Subject: Re: Updating Perl to 5.23? Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 21:06:53 +0800 Message-ID: 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]:39807) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a7jt1-0005CW-BO for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 08:06:56 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a7jt0-0003Ve-97 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 08:06:55 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87twnn3lnm.fsf@gnu.org> 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: =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel 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-determini= sm 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?