Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
El 09/06/13 20:07, Linda Walsh escribió:
Perl programs don't have hard coded versions. They look in @INC:
I never said they did, executables that are dynamically linked to libperl do, however.
You have created an issue where there was no issue.
I asked you for an example of one that did that failed.... I have asked why the restriction on perl but not on Ruby and Python. That's 3 questions you will not or can not answer. If you can't come up with a suse product that hard codes the location of the perl library, then you've created this problem you claim exists -- but doesn't. It's the only reason you claim perl needs to be unupgradable -- unlike any other rpm including those for system script engines like python or ruby.
Nope, I have created no issue, the person inventing problems here is you.
--- Who made the change to require specific versions of perl? Not I. You are avoiding answering any question that would back up your assertions. On the contrary, I have a bug report that I can refer you to in the perl database about this exact problem -- that you claim perl isn't stable between minor releases. Their answer to that was 'not true'. If you have any evidence to backup your assertions, then please show us, because so far you've created this hypothetical situation of some app that uses the perl library, but doesn't use the perl-library path and that hard codes a specific version location for that library that fails. An example of one that doesn't fail: Gvim someone (you?) added a specific version dependency on a specific version of perl. This is both unnecessary and also illustrates the fallacy that it would break if it didn't have a hard coded version check. To the contrary -- it BREAKS because of the hard-coded version check. You are only guaranteeing that things WILL fail and more often -- whereas you can't give any examples of failures caused by the reverse stance. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org