Why Perl 5.10.0 is still considered stable?

[howa]

http://www.cpan.org/src/README.html

The latest branch is 1 year, 2 months, 19 days old, and suppose the
memory leak is still exist in this version?

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=503975


Why not fix it?

 

[Tim Greer]

http://www.cpan.org/src/README.html

The latest branch is 1 year, 2 months, 19 days old, and suppose the
memory leak is still exist in this version?

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=503975


Why not fix it?

The patch was made to 5.10.0.17, which is still 5.10.0, so I assume
that's why it's showing as the latest.

 

[howa]

Hi,

The patch was made to 5.10.0.17, which is still 5.10.0, so I assume
that's why it's showing as the latest.

Are you sure this file is 5.10.0.17?

http://www.cpan.org/src/perl-5.10.0.tar.gz

 

[smallpond]

The patch was made to 5.10.0.17, which is still 5.10.0, so I assume
that's why it's showing as the latest.

I don't use Debian, but Fedora's latest build was Feb 16, 2009
using their release number 5.10.0-56 and still has the leak.
I didn't see it in the Fedora bugzilla database so I added it.

 

[Tim Greer]

I don't use Debian, but Fedora's latest build was Feb 16, 2009
using their release number 5.10.0-56 and still has the leak.
I didn't see it in the Fedora bugzilla database so I added it.

I'm actually on CentOS. I had just meant to say that 0.17 is supposed
to be when it was patched. I gather it wasn't then. Interesting.

 

[Peter J. Holzer]

I was wondering what perl 5.10.0.17 was supposed to be (there was no
formal release since 5.10.0, much less 17 of them), until I noticed that
the link above mentions perl-5.10.0-17 (i.e., release 17 of the Debian
package of perl 5.10.0).

The latest official release of perl is still 5.10.0. I don't know when
5.10.1 will be ready, although chromatic mentioned about a month ago[1]
that it is "on the way" (those following the p5p list may know more).

Debian and Fedora are independent distributions. They may or may not
apply fixes from bleadperl to their packages.

hp


[1] http://www.modernperlbooks.com/mt/2009/01/why-perl-510-is-modern-and-perl-589-is-legacy.html

 

[Tim Greer]

Debian and Fedora are independent distributions. They may or may not
apply fixes from bleadperl to their packages.

Yes, definitely. I don't use either of those dists and I'd not expect
them to have the same release builds in their Perl packages. I just
saw a report that the bug was fixed for Debian in the 0.17 "package"
build.

 

[smallpond]

I'm actually on CentOS. I had just meant to say that 0.17 is supposed
to be when it was patched. I gather it wasn't then. Interesting.

Fedora team has already rolled out the fix for F9 and F10.
That's quick work. I guess Debian isn't as enthusiastic.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489204

 

[Peter J. Holzer]

Fedora team has already rolled out the fix for F9 and F10.
That's quick work. I guess Debian isn't as enthusiastic.

Why do you guess that? According to to URL quoted above the bug was
fixed in 5.10.0-17. The version in Lenny is 5.10.0-19. So it is already
fixed.

hp