| 1 |
On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 21:25 -0700, Joshua Baergen wrote: |
| 2 |
> My point is that this isn't like the libstdc++ situation. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
wasn't implying it was - different thread, different thought :) |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> Many people have things dependent on Perl, but my impression is not that |
| 7 |
> things would break, but rather that Perl would adhere to the rules of |
| 8 |
> any other dynamically linked library, including breakage from certain |
| 9 |
> upgrades. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
heh - that would imply that when you currently upgrade perl's, there's |
| 12 |
no breakage, which isn't true since libperl isn't slotted, so your old |
| 13 |
libperl's are getting wiped anyway. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
like i said in the original message, looking for opinions - this wasn't |
| 16 |
something i was ready to commit or anything :) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
~mcummings |
Archives