Why Perl 5.10.0 is still considered stable?

Discussion in 'Perl Misc' started by howa, Mar 7, 2009.

  1. howa

    howa Guest

    howa, Mar 7, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. howa

    Tim Greer Guest

    howa wrote:

    > 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.
    --
    Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
    Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, Dedicated & Semi-Dedicated servers
    and Custom Hosting. 24/7 support, 30 day guarantee, secure servers.
    Industry's most experienced staff! -- Web Hosting With Muscle!
     
    Tim Greer, Mar 8, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. howa

    howa Guest

    Hi,

    On Mar 8, 11:22 am, Tim Greer <> wrote:
    > 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
     
    howa, Mar 8, 2009
    #3
  4. howa

    smallpond Guest

    On Mar 7, 11:22 pm, Tim Greer <> wrote:
    > howa wrote:
    > >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.


    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.
     
    smallpond, Mar 8, 2009
    #4
  5. howa

    Tim Greer Guest

    smallpond wrote:

    > On Mar 7, 11:22 pm, Tim Greer <> wrote:
    >> howa wrote:
    >> >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.

    >
    > 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.
    --
    Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
    Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, Dedicated & Semi-Dedicated servers
    and Custom Hosting. 24/7 support, 30 day guarantee, secure servers.
    Industry's most experienced staff! -- Web Hosting With Muscle!
     
    Tim Greer, Mar 8, 2009
    #5
  6. On 2009-03-08 20:44, Tim Greer <> wrote:
    > smallpond wrote:
    >
    >> On Mar 7, 11:22 pm, Tim Greer <> wrote:
    >>> howa wrote:
    >>> >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.


    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).

    >> 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.


    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
     
    Peter J. Holzer, Mar 8, 2009
    #6
  7. howa

    Tim Greer Guest

    Peter J. Holzer wrote:

    > 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.
    --
    Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
    Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, Dedicated & Semi-Dedicated servers
    and Custom Hosting. 24/7 support, 30 day guarantee, secure servers.
    Industry's most experienced staff! -- Web Hosting With Muscle!
     
    Tim Greer, Mar 9, 2009
    #7
  8. howa

    smallpond Guest

    On Mar 8, 4:44 pm, Tim Greer <> wrote:
    > smallpond wrote:
    > > On Mar 7, 11:22 pm, Tim Greer <> wrote:
    > >> howa wrote:
    > >> >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.

    >
    > > 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.


    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
     
    smallpond, Mar 23, 2009
    #8
  9. On 2009-03-23 20:08, smallpond <> wrote:
    > On Mar 8, 4:44 pm, Tim Greer <> wrote:
    >> smallpond wrote:
    >> > On Mar 7, 11:22 pm, Tim Greer <> wrote:
    >> >> howa wrote:
    >> >> >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.

    >>
    >> > 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.

    >
    > 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
     
    Peter J. Holzer, Mar 23, 2009
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Robert Mischke
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,564
    Tony Morris
    May 19, 2005
  2. Mr. SweatyFinger

    why why why why why

    Mr. SweatyFinger, Nov 28, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,023
    Mark Rae
    Dec 21, 2006
  3. Mr. SweatyFinger
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,303
    Smokey Grindel
    Dec 2, 2006
  4. James Dow Allen

    Goto still considered helpful

    James Dow Allen, Oct 5, 2007, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    49
    Views:
    1,199
    Keith Thompson
    Oct 22, 2007
  5. Lynn McGuire

    Is goto Still Considered Harmful?

    Lynn McGuire, Mar 12, 2014, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    151
    Views:
    817
    Ian Collins
    May 22, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page