From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC3971392EF for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 16:36:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 22B93E096F; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 16:36:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 293DCE0959 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 16:36:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (mobile-internet-5d6a00-137.dhcp.inet.fi [93.106.0.137]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ssuominen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C918F340417 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 16:36:00 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53B2E26E.8020609@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 19:31:42 +0300 From: Samuli Suominen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] last rites: =dev-lang/perl-5.12* and family References: <201406291749.36305.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <53B11DFD.5050303@gentoo.org> <201406301046.27513.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <53B17F3E.7040002@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <53B17F3E.7040002@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: f4e636fb-f327-4566-ab76-fb04d28758a3 X-Archives-Hash: 8c6b977b0cf7e9e50abd0bc6f325766b On 30/06/14 18:16, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 30/06/14 04:46 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > > [snip!] * As Fabian pointed out, perl-core/Switch-2.160.0 should > > still go stable. Fine with me (but I can't read your minds about > > future stabilizations, and the virtual only had ~arch reverse > > deps). > > > There shouldn't be any need to read minds, here -- if the previous > stable perl had this capability, then the new stable perl should too that's nonsense, if upstreams remove features, even working ones, it might not make everyone happy, but they are well within their rights to do that (like, upower dropping hibernate/suspend support) and if someone isn't happy about it, they can always fork - Samuli