perl-Net-DNS: Not updated

perl-Net-DNS: Not updated

[Matthias Fischer]

Hi all,

since it just came my way:

Is there a specific reason why “perl-Net-DNS” hasn't been updated in
five years? The ‘next’ branch is at v1.30, but the current version is
v1.55. One of my Devels is running...

Best
Matthias

Re: perl-Net-DNS: Not updated

[Michael Tremer]

Hello Matthias,

No, no specific reason as far as I am concerned. Maybe Adolf knows more.

If he doesn’t object either, feel free to send a patch to update it.

Best,
-Michael

> On 12 Jun 2026, at 11:39, Matthias Fischer <matthias.fischer@ipfire.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> since it just came my way:
> 
> Is there a specific reason why “perl-Net-DNS” hasn't been updated in
> five years? The ‘next’ branch is at v1.30, but the current version is
> v1.55. One of my Devels is running...
> 
> Best
> Matthias
> 
> 

Re: perl-Net-DNS: Not updated

[Matthias Fischer]

On 12.06.2026 12:40, Michael Tremer wrote:
> Hello Matthias,

Hi Michael,

> No, no specific reason as far as I am concerned. Maybe Adolf knows more.
> 
> If he doesn’t object either, feel free to send a patch to update it.

Okay, got it. The build will take a little while — right now I'm
building for Core 202 to get in touch. Then I'll test it on ‘next’ and
if its working, push it.

Best
Matthias
 > Best,
> -Michael
> 
>> On 12 Jun 2026, at 11:39, Matthias Fischer <matthias.fischer@ipfire.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> since it just came my way:
>> 
>> Is there a specific reason why “perl-Net-DNS” hasn't been updated in
>> five years? The ‘next’ branch is at v1.30, but the current version is
>> v1.55. One of my Devels is running...
>> 
>> Best
>> Matthias
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

Re: perl-Net-DNS: Not updated

[Adolf Belka]

Hi all,

On 12/06/2026 12:40, Michael Tremer wrote:
> Hello Matthias,
> 
> No, no specific reason as far as I am concerned. Maybe Adolf knows more.

Other than that I have not had time to look at the perl system and have been struggling with python, there is no other reason.

> 
> If he doesn’t object either, feel free to send a patch to update it.

More than happy for Matthias to submit an update patch.

Regards,

Adolf.

> 
> Best,
> -Michael
> 
>> On 12 Jun 2026, at 11:39, Matthias Fischer <matthias.fischer@ipfire.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> since it just came my way:
>>
>> Is there a specific reason why “perl-Net-DNS” hasn't been updated in
>> five years? The ‘next’ branch is at v1.30, but the current version is
>> v1.55. One of my Devels is running...
>>
>> Best
>> Matthias
>>
>>
> 
> 

Re: perl-Net-DNS: Not updated

[Matthias Fischer]

On 12.06.2026 12:48, Adolf Belka wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> On 12/06/2026 12:40, Michael Tremer wrote:
>> Hello Matthias,
>> 
>> No, no specific reason as far as I am concerned. Maybe Adolf knows more.
> 
> Other than that I have not had time to look at the perl system and have been struggling with python, there is no other reason.

Ok.

>> If he doesn’t object either, feel free to send a patch to update it.
> 
> More than happy for Matthias to submit an update patch.

No problem - its on its way. I hardly dare to ask this, but should I
take a look at the other Perl modules as well...?

Best
Matthias
> Regards,
> 
> Adolf.
> 
>> 
>> Best,
>> -Michael
>> 
>>> On 12 Jun 2026, at 11:39, Matthias Fischer <matthias.fischer@ipfire.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> since it just came my way:
>>>
>>> Is there a specific reason why “perl-Net-DNS” hasn't been updated in
>>> five years? The ‘next’ branch is at v1.30, but the current version is
>>> v1.55. One of my Devels is running...
>>>
>>> Best
>>> Matthias
>>>
>>>
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

Re: perl-Net-DNS: Not updated

[Adolf Belka]

Hi Matthias,

On 12/06/2026 13:03, Matthias Fischer wrote:
> On 12.06.2026 12:48, Adolf Belka wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On 12/06/2026 12:40, Michael Tremer wrote:
>>> Hello Matthias,
>>>
>>> No, no specific reason as far as I am concerned. Maybe Adolf knows more.
>>
>> Other than that I have not had time to look at the perl system and have been struggling with python, there is no other reason.
> 
> Ok.
> 
>>> If he doesn’t object either, feel free to send a patch to update it.
>>
>> More than happy for Matthias to submit an update patch.
> 
> No problem - its on its way. I hardly dare to ask this, but should I
> take a look at the other Perl modules as well...?

Feel free to do so but maybe you should also look at updating the perl package itself.

Regards,

Adolf.


> 
> Best
> Matthias
>> Regards,
>>
>> Adolf.
>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> -Michael
>>>
>>>> On 12 Jun 2026, at 11:39, Matthias Fischer <matthias.fischer@ipfire.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> since it just came my way:
>>>>
>>>> Is there a specific reason why “perl-Net-DNS” hasn't been updated in
>>>> five years? The ‘next’ branch is at v1.30, but the current version is
>>>> v1.55. One of my Devels is running...
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>> Matthias
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 

Updating perl 5.36.0 => 5.42.2 - some questions (was: Re: perl-Net-DNS: Not updated)

[Matthias Fischer]

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

Re: Updating perl 5.36.0 => 5.42.2 - some questions (was: Re: perl-Net-DNS: Not updated)

[Michael Tremer]

Hello Matthias,

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.

Best,
-Michael

> On 14 Jun 2026, at 22:04, Matthias Fischer <matthias.fischer@ipfire.org> 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
> 
> 

Re: Updating perl 5.36.0 => 5.42.2 - some questions

[Matthias Fischer]

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 <matthias.fischer@ipfire.org> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

Re: Updating perl 5.36.0 => 5.42.2 - some questions

[Michael Tremer]

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.

> On 16 Jun 2026, at 12:47, Matthias Fischer <matthias.fischer@ipfire.org> 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 <matthias.fischer@ipfire.org> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: Updating perl 5.36.0 => 5.42.2 - some questions

[Matthias Fischer]

Hi Michael,

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.

Take your time! ;-)

I'm just triple-checking all of these updates by doing another clean
'next' build - testing the new 'timerless' 'make.sh'.

Devel is running...

Best
Matthias

>> On 16 Jun 2026, at 12:47, Matthias Fischer <matthias.fischer@ipfire.org> 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 <matthias.fischer@ipfire.org> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 

Re: Updating perl 5.36.0 => 5.42.2 - some questions

[Matthias Fischer]

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 <matthias.fischer@ipfire.org> 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 <matthias.fischer@ipfire.org> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 

Re: Updating perl 5.36.0 => 5.42.2 - some questions

[Adolf Belka]

Hallo Matthias,

Sorry for late reply. I am a bit tied up with other things that are 
keeping me busy at the moment.

On 18/06/2026 13:56, Matthias Fischer wrote:
> 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...

Yes, I will have a go at this but it might not be till the week after next.

Regards,

Adolf.

> 
> Best
> Matthias
>>> On 16 Jun 2026, at 12:47, Matthias Fischer <matthias.fischer@ipfire.org> 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 <matthias.fischer@ipfire.org> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

-- 
Sent from my laptop

Re: Updating perl 5.36.0 => 5.42.2 - some questions

[Matthias Fischer]

On 20.06.2026 13:43, Adolf Belka wrote:
> Hallo Matthias,

Hi Adolf,

> Sorry for late reply. I am a bit tied up with other things that are 
> keeping me busy at the moment.
> 
> On 18/06/2026 13:56, Matthias Fischer wrote:
>> 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...
> 
> Yes, I will have a go at this but it might not be till the week after next.
> ...
No problem, take your time...its too warm for anything anyway... ;-)

In the meantime I did a few tests with my - offline - testmachine, which
included restoring my firewall rules from Core 202 on a fresh built Core
204. Installation showed no errors and no seen problems on console or in
the logs. Only green [OK]s... ;-)

E.g., running 'rules.pl' in '/usr/lib/firewall' produced no errors.

Best
Matthias