develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from July 2021

Re: PSC #025 2021-06-18 minutes

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Oodler 577 via perl5-porters
July 8, 2021 14:43
Re: PSC #025 2021-06-18 minutes
Message ID:
* David Cantrell <> [2021-07-06 12:23:32 +0100]:

> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 09:55:24AM +0000, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > ## Supported Platforms
> >
> > Neil had made good progress in collating feedback on "supported platforms",
> > and was close to having a coherent document to propose. The overview is that
> > we have 4 tiers, currently described as
> >
> > 1. Battle tested
> > 2. Stable
> > 3. Unmaintained
> > 4. Unknown
> >
> > To be in tier 1, a platform needs to provide reliable Continuous
> > Integration, so that we get test results promptly for changes made to
> > blead. GitHub doesn't offer CI for FreeBSD and OpenBSD, but we'd like to
> > make these tier 1, so we need to approach them to ask if they have resources
> > we can use.
> Cirrus CI has FreeBSD, integrates with Github, and is free for open 
> source projects:
> Sourcehut has Open and NetBSD but I've not used it at all:

Interesting, thank you, David.

I missed this while discussion, unfortunately - this is good information.

Neil, is there a draft document? I've made some progress on this thing:, which includes
a general document and a detailed document on OpenBSD (thanks to input from
Andrew Fresh).



It includes what I know about FreeBSD (a decent amount), NetBSD/pkgsrc
(not much), Debian/Ubuntu (basic), etc. I've been working on it
when able; but I would not classify it as anywhere near "complete".

I'd be happy to have this information folded into a more general
document or as an addendum that covers, e.g., "battle tested"
platforms. The way these environments have naturally separated in
my research is:

a. perl comes by default (OpenBSD, Debian, e.g.)
b. perl versions are "well supported" (FreeBSD)
c. perl is supported as a native package
d. perl is supported as part of a general package (e.g., pkgsrc, macports,
   homebrew, etc)

It's a bit more nuanced than that, but it seems to provide a
complementary perspective to this breakdown: battle tested, etc.
(i.e., one explains "why" a platform may be battle tested; the
other "how" it gets on there; together they tell us "who" would be
affected when making major decisions about versions, releases,

Anyway, please let me know how we can work together on this. I feel
attacking it from both ends can produce a nice source of fairly
complete information. At the very last, the breakdown ('battle
tested', etc) will provide me with a way to prioritize my research.
Similarly, being able to understand the level of diligence on each
platform paid to perl may affect how well "tested" it may be.

Question - how does this relate to official Perl documentation and
TPF's "documentation committee"? Would this be a perldoc distributed
with a perl version or is this some sort of "internal" documentation?


> --
> David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information

SDF-EU Public Access UNIX System - #openmp #pdl #native

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About