From: Ade Lovett
Subject: Re: perl-5.12.5 This port is marked DEPRECATED
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:53:24 -0700
> 5.18 has some interesting backwards incompatibilities.
mail/postgrey does not work with 5.18. Daemon process does not start
up after rc.d script is executed.
I found and tr
On Wednesday 14 August 2013 00:43:44 Mark Martinec wrote:
> Perl modules p5-Mail-SpamAssassin and security/amavisd-new
> with their plethora of dependency modules both run fine
> under perl 5.18.1 from ports (as well as with 5.18.0 and 5.17.9).
> Mark
I should add: except for a warning in SpamAs
> 5.16 (which is slated to become the default if I recall correctly).
> 5.18 has some interesting backwards incompatibilities.
Perl modules p5-Mail-SpamAssassin and security/amavisd-new
with their plethora of dependency modules both run fine
under perl 5.18.1 from ports (as well as with 5.18.0 and
On 8/13/2013 14:23, Jerry wrote:
Unless I am mistaken, perl-5.18 is not even in the ports system.
Keeping it out simply because some applications may not be 100%
compatible is going to cause more problems than it corrects.
You're mistaken.
[ade@lab:ports/lang/perl5.18] 2% make -V PKGNAME
perl-
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:53:24 -0700
Ade Lovett articulated:
> On 8/13/2013 12:29, Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
> > OK, fine.
> >
> > And what should we replace it with on a production 9.2-PRERELEASE?
> > 5.14? 5.16? 5.,18?
> >
> > Which would be least painful?
>
> 5.16 (which is slated to become the
On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 21:29:33 +0200
Per olof Ljungmark articulated:
> And what should we replace it with on a production 9.2-PRERELEASE?
> 5.14? 5.16? 5.,18?
Unless you have some specific reason for doing otherwise, I would
always take the newest version.
--
Jerry ♔
Disclaimer: off-list followu
On 8/13/2013 12:29, Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
OK, fine.
And what should we replace it with on a production 9.2-PRERELEASE? 5.14?
5.16? 5.,18?
Which would be least painful?
5.16 (which is slated to become the default if I recall correctly).
5.18 has some interesting backwards incompatibilitie
OK, fine.
And what should we replace it with on a production 9.2-PRERELEASE? 5.14?
5.16? 5.,18?
Which would be least painful?
Thanks for any input.
//per
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-port
