Re: Perl 5.20 and CGI + Module::Build deprecations
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 11:30:48PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> Today while reading
> https://metacpan.org/pod/distribution/perl/pod/perldelta.pod#Module-removals
> I remembered/detected 2 small challenges as well:
>
> - CGI and friends are removed;
Note that they aren't removed yet in 5.20, just deprecated. This means
that using them will generate a warning that they will be removed in
5.22 and that a separate version should be installed.
> CGI.pm is already packages separately
> anway; where it gets interesting is that CGI::Fast, which was also
> part of perl core,
> + is split off into its own dist since CGI 4.0
> + but is currently also in its own binary package libcgi-fast-perl,
> produced by the perl source package
> so we can't just package the new separate CGI::Fast as
> libcgi-fast-perl.
> I guess waiting for 5.20 (which probably will drop the libcgi-fast-perl
> binary package) and making a somehow coordinated upload of
> libcgi-pm-perl 4 (without CGI::Fast) and a new separate
> libcgi-fast-perl should be enough? (With getting versions right et
> al.)
Yeah, this is a bit messy. I suppose we could make the libcgi-fast
binary package handover even sooner, no particular need to wait
for 5.20. Not sure how the coordinated part goes, I suppose perl
will need to drop it first?
An epoch may be needed in the version number as libcgi-fast-perl is
currently at 5.18.2-4.
> - The other interesting point is Module::Build; in the regard that we
> have tons of "Build-Depends: libmodule-build-perl (>= 0.nnnnnn) |
> perl (>= 5.1x.y)" which will (not fail with sbuild which picks the
> first alternative) be wrong and cause build failures with
> p/cowbuilder, once 5.20 without M::B fulfills the second
> alternative.
As above, Perl 5.20 still has Module::Build but using it will warn.
However, I don't think the perl 5.20 packages should provide
libmodule-build-perl anymore.
I was planning to Recommend the separate libmodule-build-perl package,
but I guess that could be a dependency if necessary for the transition.
With a recommendation, I expect that sbuild will indeed work OK but
p/cowbuilder logs will be filled with warnings about installing the
separate package.
I agree it's going to be somewhat interesting :)
--
Niko Tyni ntyni@debian.org
Reply to: