Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2017
On 4 July 2017 at 11:38, Dominic Hargreaves <dom@earth.li> wrote: > Great stuff, thanks! > > I note that the base.pm commit from Aristotle does not appear in > blead yet (or maint-5.26). It's lesss urgent there given that the > defaults changed but it still has applicability there given that > people could unset -Ddefault_inc_excludes_dot. > > Of course none of this should block the release of the 5.24.2 or > 5.22.4, but would be good if it didn't get forgotten - and indeed > perlpolicy at least implies that all maint fixes should come via blead. > I think this was deliberate, e.g. on 17 March Sawyer said (in reply to Dave M) that nothing else on perl #127834 needs doing for 5.26.0 (https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=127834#txn-1453921), and on 24 March Dave M reverted the various dot-in-INC changes that were then current in base.pm (commit 6ee05a9b91). The latter was done under perl #128769. Originally, the intent there was to revert the patches thus far in favour of Aristotle's forthcoming patch, but then it ended up going like this: Graham Knop: > Can't we just revert the base.pm changes without putting anything > extra in place? We're already removing . from @INC globally. There's > little need for base.pm to have its own protections, especially given > how broken the current implementation is. Sawyer: > This makes sense. > I spoke to Graham more about this on #p5p. There's no need to have an altered base.pm with 5.26.0 (because safe @INC is turned on by default anyway). When base.pm is released separately, it will simply be a different (and up-to-date) version. > So we should undo the changes to base.pm in blead. Post 5.26 we could sync it with CPAN. However, I agree that it would make sense for the final base.pm changes to be ported forward to 5.26 (and blead, pending a new CPAN release of base?) because of the possibility of people unsetting the default exclusion of dot in @INC. If there is agreement on that (or at least, no disagreement) then I will go ahead with that shortly, when I get things moving on 5.26.0. (This is assuming that the new base.pm patch does indeed resolve the problems that #128769 was originally about. I haven't checked that yet, but need to do so anyway w.r.t. maint-5.2[24]...)Thread Previous | Thread Next