diff options
author | intrigeri <intrigeri@boum.org> | 2011-04-16 18:56:28 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | intrigeri <intrigeri@boum.org> | 2011-04-16 18:56:28 +0200 |
commit | 10602edc351d8eb3fbb54a50e079a568c15869e0 (patch) | |
tree | ca0e4872d86b330c2ce59484aeff634fc8683d18 | |
parent | a097d9874137eeaccbd25a5fa525461fc0fd3ebd (diff) |
Reply.
-rw-r--r-- | doc/bugs/yaml_setup_file_does_not_support_UTF-8_if_XS_is_installed.mdwn | 22 |
1 files changed, 22 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/bugs/yaml_setup_file_does_not_support_UTF-8_if_XS_is_installed.mdwn b/doc/bugs/yaml_setup_file_does_not_support_UTF-8_if_XS_is_installed.mdwn index da8f494ff..df27fa481 100644 --- a/doc/bugs/yaml_setup_file_does_not_support_UTF-8_if_XS_is_installed.mdwn +++ b/doc/bugs/yaml_setup_file_does_not_support_UTF-8_if_XS_is_installed.mdwn @@ -38,3 +38,25 @@ preferred one? >> Syck earlier.) So it appears the new YAML::Xs is the >> way to go longterm, and presumably YAML::Any will start depending on it >> in due course? --[[Joey]] + +>>> Right. Since this bug is fixed in current testing/sid, only +>>> Squeeze needs to be taken care of. As far as Debian Squeeze is +>>> concerned, I see two ways out of the current buggy situation: +>>> +>>> 1. Add `Conflicts: libyaml-libyaml-perl (< 0.34-1~)` to the +>>> ikiwiki packages uploaded to stable and squeeze-backports. +>>> Additionally uploading the newer, fixed `libyaml-libyaml-perl` +>>> to squeeze-backports would make the resulting situation a bit +>>> easier to deal with from the Debian stable user point of view. +>>> 2. Patch the ikiwiki packages uploaded to stable and +>>> squeeze-backports: +>>> - either to workaround the bug by explicitly using YAML::Syck +>>> (yeah, it's deprecated, but it's Debian stable) +>>> - or to make the bug easier to workaround by the user, e.g. by +>>> warning her of possible problems in case YAML::Any has chosen +>>> YAML::XS as its preferred implementation (the +>>> `YAML::Any->implementation` module method can come in handy +>>> in this case). +>>> +>>> I tend to prefer the first aforementioned solution, but any of +>>> these will anyway be kinda ugly, so... |