Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from April 2017
On 04/17/2017 10:18 AM, Leon Timmermans wrote: > > Quite frankly, if we can miss a target the size of autoconf, one > starts to wonder what else did we miss. Not knowing that answer makes > a workaround that only solves autoconf a rather uncertain solution. > Our primary codebase for testing is the core distribution's internal test suite. Our secondary codebase for testing is CPAN. Up until now, those have generally been sufficient. However, going forward -- particularly with respect to deprecations and subsequent fatalizations -- we need to test against a tertiary codebase. That tertiary codebase would be the "important" executables written in Perl and dependent upon the "system perl" or "vendor perl" in prominent open source software distributions. Off the top of my head, I'd say such software distributions would include: Linux: Debian Ubuntu RedHat Gentoo BSD: FreeBSD OpenBSD We would have to work with the people identified as "Perl maintainers" for those distributions -- many of whom we know already and who have committed code to the core -- to identify programs like autoconf that are vulnerable to deprecations and fatalizations. Then, when a deprecation is proposed, we'd have to smoke it against those programs' own test suites. Whether and when we fatalize some feature would depend on feedback from those maintainers. Thank you very much. Jim KeenanThread Previous | Thread Next