Re: Perl5 update

[Jens Rehsack <rehsack%gmail.com@localhost>]

Am 30.05.2014 um 02:42 schrieb OBATA Akio <obata%lins.jp@localhost>:

> On Fri, 30 May 2014 08:05:18 +0900, Thomas Klausner 
> <wiz%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
> 
>>> and prove each p5-* module against requiring removed modules from core 
>>> (Module::Build, CGI, ...)?
>> 
>> There's no automation for that yet, so we'll fix these as we find
>> them.
> 
> Those module are not removed yet, just marked as deprecated
> http://search.cpan.org/~rjbs/perl-5.20.0/pod/perldelta.pod#Module_removals

True - I was mislead by behavior of last blead/release ...
Those modules were marked depreciated in blead and got removed with 1st release.

> Should we prevent warnings?

Nope, we should prefer dedicated packages for CPAN versions of the modules (as 
we do already for Module::Build).
Regarding to Saywer X statement "CGI.pm must die" (in favor of Catalyst, 
Dancer, Mojo, ...) I don't check CGI to often, so sorry for filtering it :)

> And following also should be done:
> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-pkg/2013/11/22/msg012262.html

Some say so, some say just add a comment.
In https://github.com/rehsack/Packager-Utils I meanwhile do comments of the 
recommended line.

> Update CONFLICTS in lang/perl5/Makefile.
>   
> http://search.cpan.org/~rjbs/perl-5.20.0/pod/perldelta.pod#Modules_and_Pragmata
> Check packages marked as "older for.." core module may be sufficient now.

This would have been a nice approval whether P::U does that nicely out of the 
box.
I see how far I come using a not updated git-clone ;)

Cheers
-- 
Jens Rehsack
rehsack%gmail.com@localhost