On 2014-06-06 04:34:16, JANPAZ wrote:
Show quoted text> On Thu Jun 05 02:31:59 2014, SREZIC wrote:
> >
> > There's still perl 5.8 around in the world. RHEL5 ships perl 5.8.8,
> > and is supported until 2017 (the extended life phase, whatever this
> > means, even lasts until 2020). A central university
>
> And I maintain perl-DBD-XBase in EPEL 5 and there's perl-DBD-XBase-
> 0.241-5.el5.noarch.rpm there.
What if the users need the newest DBD-XBase?
Show quoted text> > and then still login with Solaris 10 running has only 5.8.4
> > installed.
>
> If perl came as package from Sun/Oracle, you probably should ask them
> to package DBD::XBase as native Solaris package as well.
How likely is the success of such an attempt? I am just an unprivileged user on this system. I don't know anything about Solaris packages, the policy about requesting one at Oracle, and I would have to ask the sysadmin to install it... It's much more easier to install perl packages via CPAN.pm and setup a local::lib-like system.
Anyway, even if somebody would build such a package for Solaris: he would have to patch the "use 5.010" away.
Show quoted text> > > Do you have a specific use case when not supporting 5.8 breaks your
> > > deployments?
> >
> > My specific case is in
> >
https://github.com/eserte/bbbike/blob/master/.travis.yml
> > I would like to get rid of the special handling for DBD::XBase, given
> > that it's unnecessary (the newest DBD::XBase version works with
> > 5.8.x).
>
> Isn't the cleanest solution getting DBD::XBase packaged properly as
> .deb package so that it can be installed via apt-get, not via cpanm?
No, that's not how travis-ci works. Normally you don't specify any CPAN packages; everything is resolved and installed automatically by travis-ci, using normal perl/CPAN mechanisms (PREREQ_PM in Makefile.PL etc.). The list of CPAN modules explicitly listed in the .travis.yml is just for the exceptions. In an ideal world even the apt-get statements shouldn't be there but be replaced by Alien-* distributions.
Anyway, all these complications wouldn't be necessary if just the "use 5.010" was removed...