Re: Call for opinion: strawberry perl 5.18.x/32bit with USE_64_BIT_INT

-----Original Message----- 
From: kmx

> > ActivePerl binaries (ppm packages) will not be usable on the 64int 
> > architecture Strawberry Perl - unless, of course, ActiveState also start 
> > providing packages for the 64int architecture. (I've no idea what 
> > ActiveState are planning to do in this regard.)
> > I doubt that many Strawberry users (if any) would be affected by this, 
> > and I don't regard it as a stopper.
>
> On the other hand ActiveState ppm repositories use newer ppm format than 
> ppm utility included in strawberry perl is able to handle. So it is not 
> even today easily possible to install ppm from ActiveState repo into

Oh yes ... I think I recently discovered that there's quite a few hoops to 
jump through if you want to 'ppm install' from AS repo to Strawberry Perl.
(Although I build a few ppm packages, I rarely actually use ppm - and I keep 
losing track of the capabilities of this utility.)

> > (Will 32int Strawberry builds still be available for anyone who wants 
> > one ?)
>
> No, my idea is just one and only one 32bit strawberry perl 5.18.x with 
> 64int.

Good - that keeps it nice and simple.

> > One other thing to consider with 5.18 Strawberry is whether it should be 
> > COW-enabled or not.
> > Until recently, the p5p plan was to make 5.18 COW-enabled, but that has 
> > now been postponed to 5.20 (which will definitely be COW-enabled).
> > As the plan currently stands, 5.18 will build as COW-disabled by 
> > default - but there's an option to build it COW-enabled (which p5p are 
> > encouraging module authors to use - mainly to have them avoid rude 
> > shocks when 5.20 does come along).

>
> As for COW I am gonna follow perl core default behaviour.

I've no problems with that. I intend to have both COW-enabled and 
COW-disabled builds of 5.18.0, but I'm aiming to build ppm packages for 
COW-disabled only.

Cheers,
Rob