Re: About the Hamm Freeze (!)
"Darren/Torin/Who Ever..." <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Raul Miller, in an immanent manifestation of deity, wrote:
> > James Troup <J.J.Troup@scm.brad.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > No; perl shouldn't depend on libgdbmg1. libgdbmg1 is obsolete
> > > and deprecated. I asked the perl maintainer if he could fix
> > > this back in March or so, apparently it hasn't happened.
> > This close to hamm's release, we should probably rely on
> > non-maintainer fixes for most outstanding problems (if we can get
> > a maintainer release that's better, of course).
> It hasn't happened *intentionally*. I'm not going to break many
> Perl scripts without warning. We have a release where gdbm is
> deprecated and then next release, Perl won't be linked with it.
I don't know perl, and am only going on what Ray has been telling me.
It was my understanding that perl could be made to dynamically load
it's gdbm part on request and that way perl need only recommend or
(better) suggest gdbm. Is this not the case?
In any event _that_ was what I was requesting, not that we arbitrarily
drop gdbm support for perl in hamm. I realise that's not a winning
~Yawn And Walk North~
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org