Created attachment 296655 [details, diff] perl-5.12.3-r1 patch The inevitable. I would like to migrate Prefix' changes for dev-lang/perl to gx86. Unfortunately, changes here are all but small. Due to the current 5.14 mask, we need both 5.12.3-r1 and 5.14.2 ebuilds to be changed. The changes necessary are threefold: 1) simple ED/EPREFIX/EROOT changes, 2) complex offset awareness changes and 3) additional patches necessary for Prefix platforms. To start with the simplest part: libperl-5.10.1 only requires changes of type 1) and a little bit of 3) (+ EAPI bump): --- libperl-5.10.1.ebuild 2010-12-27 21:51:05.000000000 +0100 +++ libperl-5.10.1-r00.1.ebuild 2011-12-22 11:47:11.000000000 +0100 @@ -2,6 +2,8 @@ # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2 # $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/sys-devel/libperl/libperl-5.10.1.ebuild,v 1.20 2010/11/13 16:05:05 armin76 Exp $ +EAPI="3" + inherit multilib DESCRIPTION="Larry Wall's Practical Extraction and Report Language" @@ -15,9 +17,9 @@ PDEPEND=">=dev-lang/perl-5.10.1" pkg_postinst() { - if [[ $(readlink "${ROOT}/usr/$(get_libdir )/libperl$(get_libname)" ) == libperl$(get_libname).1 ]] ; then - einfo "Removing stale symbolic link: ${ROOT}usr/$(get_libdir)/libperl$(get_libname)" - rm "${ROOT}"/usr/$(get_libdir )/libperl$(get_libname) + if [[ $(readlink "${EROOT}/usr/$(get_libdir)/libperl$(get_libname)") == libperl$(get_libname 1) ]] ; then + einfo "Removing stale symbolic link: ${EROOT}usr/$(get_libdir)/libperl$(get_libname)" + rm "${EROOT}"/usr/$(get_libdir )/libperl$(get_libname) fi } (Notice the get_libname calls that pull in the version now to get correct library names on e.g. Darwin) I attach the large diffs for perl-5.12.3-r1 and perl-5.14.2. If you need any clarification on parts, please let me know.
Created attachment 296657 [details, diff] perl-5.14.2 patch
@perl: we will assume you don't have any objections if there are no comments on this bug at 2012-03-01.
Committed in gx86 now. Please assign us to bugs when they appear.
(In reply to comment #2) > @perl: we will assume you don't have any objections if there are no comments > on this bug at 2012-03-01. Well, this statement went unseen in all the stabilization mails. Else I had asked to *not* commit it. Now i have to do the cleaning and i don't know when i have to time to do it. Maybe for the next major release.
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #2) > > @perl: we will assume you don't have any objections if there are no comments > > on this bug at 2012-03-01. > > Well, this statement went unseen in all the stabilization mails. Else I had > asked to *not* commit it. > > Now i have to do the cleaning and i don't know when i have to time to do it. > Maybe for the next major release. If you can tell me what you need/what is the problem, I might be able to help you. By no means we/Prefix is out to cause unnecessary trouble.
