1 |
Before you start unmasking, lest we forget that dev-util/svk is masked |
2 |
by itself, anyway. |
3 |
Daniel, what's the big difference between Encode 2.08 and 2.10 (provided |
4 |
by perl 5.8.6 and 5.8.7 respectively, IIRC)? |
5 |
Just wondering if the dependency is justified ;) |
6 |
|
7 |
--Yuval |
8 |
|
9 |
Michael Cummings wrote: |
10 |
|
11 |
>I'd prefer to unmask 5.8.7 instead if it were just up to me...especially |
12 |
>since 5.8.8 is looming in the next week or so according to nick |
13 |
> |
14 |
> |
15 |
>On Tue, 2006-01-10 at 10:10 -0500, Daniel Westermann-Clark wrote: |
16 |
> |
17 |
> |
18 |
>>Hello, |
19 |
>> |
20 |
>>Before opening a bug to track this, I wanted to get some feedback. |
21 |
>> |
22 |
>>Currently dev-util/svk depends on >=dev-lang/perl-5.8.7. The only |
23 |
>>reason is that the version of Encode in 5.8.6 is too old. |
24 |
>> |
25 |
>>As part of bug 116331, I suggested adding perl-core/Encode and |
26 |
>>depending on that in dev-util/svk. Is this something the perl herd |
27 |
>>would consider? |
28 |
>> |
29 |
>>Thanks, |
30 |
>>-- |
31 |
>>Daniel Westermann-Clark |
32 |
>> |
33 |
>> |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
gentoo-perl@g.o mailing list |