On Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:53:24 -0700
Ade Lovett articulated:
> On 8/13/2013 12:29, Per olof Ljungmark wrote:
> > OK, fine.
> > And what should we replace it with on a production 9.2-PRERELEASE?
> > 5.14? 5.16? 5.,18?
> > Which would be least painful?
> 5.16 (which is slated to become the default if I recall correctly).
> 5.18 has some interesting backwards incompatibilities.
Unless I am mistaken, perl-5.18 is not even in the ports system.
Keeping it out simply because some applications may not be 100%
compatible is going to cause more problems than it corrects.
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
On 8/13/2013 14:23, Jerry wrote:
> Unless I am mistaken, perl-5.18 is not even in the ports system.
> Keeping it out simply because some applications may not be 100%
> compatible is going to cause more problems than it corrects.
[ade@lab:ports/lang/perl5.18] 2% make -V PKGNAME
On Wednesday 14 August 2013 00:43:44 Mark Martinec wrote:
> Perl modules p5-Mail-SpamAssassin and security/amavisd-new
> with their plethora of dependency modules both run fine
> under perl 5.18.1 from ports (as well as with 5.18.0 and 5.17.9).
From: Yasuhiro KIMURA <[hidden email]>
Subject: Perl 5,18 backward incompatibilities issue (Re: perl-5.12.5 This port is marked DEPRECATED)
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 13:16:14 +0900 (JST)
> mail/postgrey does not work with 5.18. Daemon process does not start
> up after rc.d script is executed.
> I found and tried following patch but problem did not fixed.
> https://github.com/schweikert/postgrey/issues/3 >
> So I switched back to 5.16.