On 2021-06-02, at 4:12 AM, Giuseppe 'ferdy' Miceli wrote: > ciao, > >> On 2 Jun 2021, at 09:29, Ken Cunningham <ken.cunningham.web...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Seems like a fine idea to me. Thing is, you actually don't want to be that >> current anyway. > > 1. as far i understood, for perl the recommended version should be perl5.30 > which is stable (even tho’ not maintained), one year old (latest updated > 20200601): > > version latest update status > 5.30 2020-06-01 old version - not maintained > 5.32 2021-01-23 old version - still maintained > 5.34 2021-05-20 current stable - not yet in macports >
I would personally upgrade the recommended perl the day it stops getting security updates, to one version newer. Minimum fuss, maximum compatibility. Let the well-funded Linux distros fix all the tedious headaches updating modules to newer perl versions. But as you have heard, others feel a reason to be more cutting edge. We find modules get updated to new perl or python versions without anyone testing the build or function, or running the test suite. Just because it shows up as an option is no indication that it actually works (which is the whole point of hanging back a bit). > 2. what about python? as far as i understood should be 3.9 (also one year old > and with 3.10 still in beta, expected release oct 2021): > > version maintainance release end of support > 3.9 bugfix 2020-10-05 2025-10 > 3.8 bugfix 2019-10-14 2024-10 > 3.7 security 2018-06-27 2023-06-27 > 3.6 security 2016-12-23 2021-12-23 > 2.7 end-of-life 2010-07-03 2020-01-01 > I believe macports' recommended python version is already 3.9 at present, we have that, and most ports default to that. Ones that don't should be updated to do so, if they actaully work with python39 (we have found a number of them don't). > > does it make sense? also, what are we supposed to do with python2.7? We need python27 for various bootstrapping things, and for all the software (like llvm !) that still needs it to work properly. So I think we'll have python27 in some form or other forever. K > — > ferdy > >> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021, Daniel J. Luke <dl...@geeklair.net> wrote: >> On Jun 1, 2021, at 4:25 PM, Ken Cunningham <ken.cunningham.web...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> is there any overall strategy regarding the update of perl and python >> >> version as dependencies? >> >> >> > The basic idea was to be rational about things, so that end-users don’t >> > need many different perls and pythons installed just because, for example, >> > someone noticed a new perl came out last Tuesday and so changed their >> > ports to that. >> > >> > The admins would set the “recommended” perl and python based on updates >> > and software conformance, and all ports would try to use that (unless some >> > given version would be the only version that would work). >> > >> > And then, en-masse, at the right moment the “recommended” version would >> > change, all the ports would more-or-less move to the new default at once, >> > if we could. >> > >> > How well this is working, whether it is working at all, and how well it is >> > or is not generally supported by the group I could not say. >> > >> > But it seemed like a good idea, when for example one needed to build and >> > install two or three perls and two or three pythons just to install git. >> >> For perl, we should just ship one perl as 'perl5' and have everything depend >> on it (and revbump the world of perl when we upgrade it). It takes us too >> long to migrate everything 'nicely' >> >> I suspect we could do this for python as well, but I've not looked recently >> at how disruptive newer python versions are. >> >> ... but I've said it before and people don't really like that idea, I guess >> :) >> >> -- >> Daniel J. Luke >> >
