develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from November 2012

Re: Perl 5.12.5 is now available

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Alexander Hartmaier
Date:
November 11, 2012 11:09
Subject:
Re: Perl 5.12.5 is now available
Message ID:
CAB49QrapBnx2_yu=M_oRvBXAg5V7X0BQncBvLOgj1v+NteiWvA@mail.gmail.com
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 4:09 AM, Ricardo Signes
<perl.p5p@rjbs.manxome.org>wrote:

> * Alexander Hartmaier <alex.hartmaier@gmail.com> [2012-11-10T20:22:18]
> > Thanks Dominic, but why did Perl ship again with development versions of
> > two modules, Encode and File::Glob?
> > I thought it was agreed on that this causes problems in the toolchain and
> > will be avoided in the future.
>
> No, the problem is when the latest stable release of perl ships with a dev
> version of module M later than the latest stable release of M.
>
> For example, EU::MM 1.23_01 gets bundled with 5.16.0, but only 1.22 is
> live on
> the CPAN.  This means anyone requiring 1.23_01 is demanding code that
> can't be
> found in the CPAN index.
>
I see, thanks for the explanation!


>
> The use of _0x versions in maint releases to introduce small security or
> buildability fixes in maint-point releases is longstanding and not
> problematic.
>
> > Was the version bumped because it is 2.39 with just the security fix
> which
> > was already present in 2.40 and up?
> > If yes why does it include an underscore which normally indicates a
> > development version?
>
> I have not investiagted specifically, and I'm about to crash, but almost
> certainly:  (1) it's as you say and (2) the _01 here is just to get a
> number
> between 2.39 and 2.40 while indicating, "this 'release' is unusual."  The
> question of CPAN indexing is not relevant.
>
I'd understand if the version number chosen was 2.391 or 2.3901 but the
underscore, which normally means 'development version', bugs me.

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About