I wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> Why don't we specify the minimum versions required of these somewhere in
>> the perl code? Perl is pretty good at this.
> configure already checks Test::More's version. I proposed downthread
> that it should also check IPC::Run, but didn't pull that trigger y
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 10/9/21 10:25 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
>> You mentioned prairiedog uses IPC::Run 0.79. That's from 2005. (Perl 5.8.3
>> is from 2004, and Test::More 0.87 is from 2009.) I'd just use 0.79 in the
>> README recipe. IPC::Run is easy to upgrade, so if we find cause to rely
On 10/9/21 10:25 PM, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 09, 2021 at 04:34:46PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hah ... your backpan link led me to realize the actual problem with
>> Test::More. It got folded into Test::Simple at some point, and
>> evidently cpanm isn't smart enough to handle a request fo
On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 04:10:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
> > On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 01:17:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The closest I can get to what we want using cpanm is with this recipe:
> >> cpanm install Test::Simple@0.87_01
> >> cpanm install IPC::Run@0.79
> >> cpa
Noah Misch writes:
> On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 01:17:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The closest I can get to what we want using cpanm is with this recipe:
>> cpanm install Test::Simple@0.87_01
>> cpanm install IPC::Run@0.79
>> cpanm install ExtUtils::MakeMaker@6.50 # downgrade
> While the MakeMake
On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 01:17:10PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> However, back to the matter of the recipe. I'm feeling discouraged
> again because experimentation shows that cpanm insists on updating
> the ExtUtils suite to current while installing Test::Simple. You
> can then downgrade that, but it'
I wrote:
> The closest I can get to what we want using cpanm is with this recipe:
> cpanm install Test::Simple@0.87_01
> cpanm install IPC::Run@0.79
> cpanm install ExtUtils::MakeMaker@6.50 # downgrade
Upon trying to actually use the perlbrew installation, I discovered
another oversi
Noah Misch writes:
> On Sat, Oct 09, 2021 at 04:34:46PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... Now I'm wondering what
>> version of IPC::Run to recommend.
> You mentioned prairiedog uses IPC::Run 0.79. That's from 2005. (Perl 5.8.3
> is from 2004, and Test::More 0.87 is from 2009.) I'd just use 0.79 in
On Sat, Oct 09, 2021 at 04:34:46PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hah ... your backpan link led me to realize the actual problem with
> Test::More. It got folded into Test::Simple at some point, and
> evidently cpanm isn't smart enough to handle a request for a back
> version in such cases. But this wo
Hah ... your backpan link led me to realize the actual problem with
Test::More. It got folded into Test::Simple at some point, and
evidently cpanm isn't smart enough to handle a request for a back
version in such cases. But this works:
$ cpanm install Test::Simple@0.87_01
...
$ perl -MTest::More
On Sat, Oct 09, 2021 at 03:44:17PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > By the way, I suspect 93fb39e introduced a regression in the recipe. (I
> > haven't tested, though.) Before commit 93fb39e, "cpanm install IPC::Run"
> > would update Test::More. As of 5.8.3, the core version of Test::More is new
> > e
Noah Misch writes:
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 12:03:41PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> You're not going to get far with "improving the recipe", because it's
>> just not possible. To check this, I installed perlbrew on a Fedora 34
> Your test result is evidence that "cpanm install Test::More@0.87" is
On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 12:03:41PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> > On 8 Oct 2021, at 06:24, Noah Misch wrote:
> >> That's obvious from "cpanm install IPC::Run". Surely if any other non-core
> >> module were allowed, the recipe would list it in a similar way.
>
> > The pro
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> On 8 Oct 2021, at 06:24, Noah Misch wrote:
>> That's obvious from "cpanm install IPC::Run". Surely if any other non-core
>> module were allowed, the recipe would list it in a similar way.
> The proposed changes talks about with core modules are allowed to use, I thin
> On 8 Oct 2021, at 06:24, Noah Misch wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 11:39:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Noah Misch writes:
>>> On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 03:44:48PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> (1) I'm distrustful of the idea that perl 5.8.x will compile
> cleanly, or at all, on modern pl
On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 11:39:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch writes:
> > On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 03:44:48PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> (1) I'm distrustful of the idea that perl 5.8.x will compile
> >>> cleanly, or at all, on modern platforms. Certainly Postgres
> >>> releases of simil
Noah Misch writes:
> On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 03:44:48PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> (1) I'm distrustful of the idea that perl 5.8.x will compile
>>> cleanly, or at all, on modern platforms. Certainly Postgres
>>> releases of similar vintage won't.
> perlbrew uses the patchperl system to build old
On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 03:44:48PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> [ cc'ing Craig and Noah, as author/committer of the existing text ]
>
> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> > On 7 Oct 2021, at 21:02, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> BTW, looking at that a second time, I wonder if that advice is
> >> really of any use.
>
On 2021-Oct-07, Tom Lane wrote:
> +Portability
> +---
> +
> +Avoid using any bleeding-edge Perl features. We have buildfarm animals
> +running Perl versions as old as 5.8.3, so your tests will be expected
> +to pass on that.
> +
> +Also, do not use any non-core Perl modules except IPC::Ru
> On 7 Oct 2021, at 23:48, Tom Lane wrote:
> Concretely, then, I propose the attached.
LGTM. Good idea to change the section heading, Portability is a better title
for this.
--
Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2021-Oct-07, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm. I do see that Module::CoreList knows not only which modules
>> are in core but when they were brought in, so that does seem like
>> a really valuable reference to know about. Let's just say something
>> like "You can consult Module
On 2021-Oct-07, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hmm. I do see that Module::CoreList knows not only which modules
> are in core but when they were brought in, so that does seem like
> a really valuable reference to know about. Let's just say something
> like "You can consult Module::CoreList to find out whethe
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> On 2021-Oct-07, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So this isn't looking promising :-(
> Looking in the archives, apparently people use
> perl -MModule::CoreList
> but I see that that module, at least in Debian, is distributed even less
> widely than corelist(1) itself, because it's a
On 2021-Oct-07, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Maybe we can mention `corelist -a` as a way to find out the module
> > versions shipped with each Perl version.
>
> Hm, I don't see that on my RHEL box.
Oh, that's strange. It's installed by the perl package on my system, so
I had as
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Maybe we can mention `corelist -a` as a way to find out the module
> versions shipped with each Perl version.
Hm, I don't see that on my RHEL box.
It does exist on my Mac, but the output is very unhelpful:
$ which corelist
/usr/bin/corelist
$ corelist -a
The content
On 2021-Oct-07, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> Agreed, that's a lot more helpful. Since the set of core Perl modules change
> over time as modules are brought in (at least that's my understanding of it),
> that last paragraph might want to discourage use of modules that aren't
> expected to be in-cor
> On 7 Oct 2021, at 21:44, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> [ cc'ing Craig and Noah, as author/committer of the existing text ]
>
> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
>> On 7 Oct 2021, at 21:02, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> BTW, looking at that a second time, I wonder if that advice is
>>> really of any use.
>
>> Yeah, I w
[ cc'ing Craig and Noah, as author/committer of the existing text ]
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> On 7 Oct 2021, at 21:02, Tom Lane wrote:
>> BTW, looking at that a second time, I wonder if that advice is
>> really of any use.
> Yeah, I would have to agree. Reading that again I think what it per
28 matches
Mail list logo
