From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail02.haj.ipfire.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail02.haj.ipfire.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ggzj36NTrz32c1 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2026 11:56:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail01.ipfire.org (mail01.haj.ipfire.org [IPv6:2001:678:b28::25]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1 raw public key) server-digest SHA384 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mail01.haj.ipfire.org", Issuer "YR2" (not verified)) by mail02.haj.ipfire.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4ggzj03j93z2xLt for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2026 11:56:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail01.ipfire.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4ggzhy64j5z12S; Thu, 18 Jun 2026 11:56:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipfire.org; s=202003ed25519; t=1781783794; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=yd4VhPl013EaunN8uNf6RZl4ZnEiwJgh064XY60pCkg=; b=ArxiU4yyjqbWtnFUUTeVI1aEijtUsU5BKpNjpf9QkUQ1hqQb0bug8siWckWQLHdtzwV3T7 l3byeB20SoBfW0Bg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipfire.org; s=202003rsa; t=1781783794; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=yd4VhPl013EaunN8uNf6RZl4ZnEiwJgh064XY60pCkg=; b=p6QOLGEOZssIro31kfhcwNDGP4m8b3Ixj+parE9PsBvQnwpcGetLW/1y9oEsKMbo86JvxA PaAvjwONW6m+NxpLo8sD+HteZYHDG4yElC070BLf2jgfbmH9cd5COjsz1r5U/MgyPNiS1E 9VhwC0lF6pm5r7+/cfbfUUm2X+5t968u6bynEZA3vClCt+0ZR9ifTLkk+3nKhqVxJqpUeG VJ+Y4+SS+GoPy15ytYy7CKek7M9CjUwwT7t8tDWMsSHvoKXR9JE83F3TTbXBhRI2BsEV2M 4jFoOzSVWmJtxAqNyaghklTs6n4pXZQcObgGrCCctoFWyVeVEnLRlw0Lfwzb0A== Message-ID: <6001b1cd-b5c7-4878-9d0e-cc8e43ea2346@ipfire.org> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2026 13:56:27 +0200 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: Sender: Mail-Followup-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Updating perl 5.36.0 => 5.42.2 - some questions To: development@lists.ipfire.org Cc: Michael Tremer , "IPFire: Belka, Adolf" References: <2dd775e8-e645-43f2-8219-e79198e666e3@ipfire.org> <1D3FCBD1-16E5-450B-88A0-B27B1F337EDB@ipfire.org> <56142892-a026-4f3f-b446-f05153f87490@ipfire.org> <60287726-6a52-4c3d-af92-917f62d52759@ipfire.org> <0B8676F0-27B2-4DE2-BE12-301D2F827E4D@ipfire.org> <5d90be69-e026-477e-96c1-056235b202c2@ipfire.org> <0645F905-CBFC-4A53-9AD6-D0B86F43197B@ipfire.org> Content-Language: en-US From: Matthias Fischer In-Reply-To: <0645F905-CBFC-4A53-9AD6-D0B86F43197B@ipfire.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi all, On 16.06.2026 13:49, Michael Tremer wrote: > No worries, I wasn’t particularly quick with my response. > > What you sent looks good to me. I will reply to those emails once I review them. No problem, take your time. But since I was warned that building could be ok, but starting the firewall (e.g.) could run into errors, I set up my - offline - testmachine and couldn't find any (starting) errors. But: could 'someone' (Adolf(!?) ;-) ), install this build with this perl update and test it *online*? I don't know if this makes a really *big* difference, but I would feel better... Best Matthias >> On 16 Jun 2026, at 12:47, Matthias Fischer wrote: >> >> On 16.06.2026 13:20, Michael Tremer wrote: >>> Hello Matthias, >> >> Hi Michael, >> >>> Yes, this is a bug update because there are plenty of modules built after the main package. >>> >>> The best way would be to update them one by one - i.e. commit them one by one. But since this is a lot, I would be happy to listen to any other proposals. >> >> Ups. Just saw your mail - a few seconds after I pushed the whole thing, >> sorry. >> >> Take a look and decide - its really huge... ;-) >> >> Best >> Matthias >>> Best, >>> -Michael >>> >>>> On 14 Jun 2026, at 22:04, Matthias Fischer wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On 12.06.2026 13:19, Adolf Belka wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>> Feel free to do so but maybe you should also look at updating the perl package itself. >>>>> ... >>>> >>>> I did. But I'm not quite sure what to do next and need a hint. >>>> >>>> After "a few" rootfile-adjustments I got a build based on 'next' with >>>> 'perl 5.42.2' that is building without any errors. No seen problems. >>>> >>>> Adjusting the rootfile for the new perl version was a bit...extensive, >>>> but I think I managed it. Build is running without any errors. >>>> >>>> But there are about 70 rootfiles from 'common' to 'packages' who thought >>>> they were all alone now and wanted to come along. They all contained the >>>> perl version string '5.36.0', which now had to be changed to 5.42.2. >>>> >>>> I think I need to push these files together with the actual perl update. >>>> This will take some place for an update... Since this is my first perl >>>> update I was a bit surprised how many files were affected. >>>> >>>> Would this be ok? Updating perl leads to about ~70 files that need to be >>>> updated too and pushed because of changed rootfiles? >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Matthias >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >