Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: SpamAssassin: devel

How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?

 

 

SpamAssassin devel RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


jm at jmason

Jun 25, 2009, 1:44 AM

Post #1 of 8 (577 views)
Permalink
How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?

For the upcoming release, we're considering dropping support for that
interpreter version. If you're still using 5.6.x, or know of a
(relatively recent) distro that does, please reply to highlight
this....

--j.


guenther at rudersport

Jun 25, 2009, 5:27 AM

Post #2 of 8 (536 views)
Permalink
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x? [In reply to]

On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 09:44 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> For the upcoming release, we're considering dropping support for that
> interpreter version. If you're still using 5.6.x, or know of a
> (relatively recent) distro that does, please reply to highlight
> this....

Deliberately keeping this to the dev list.

With my previous comment I was specifically referring to comments like
in bug 5574. Comment 11 outlines the general age of Perl releases and
the Linux part of the picture. Comment 21 argues about MacOS. Anyone
know details about BSD, Solaris and maybe others?

Also, of course, I was about fixing bug 6131 properly. Hence me
explicitly mentioning requiring Perl 5.8.1 -- or alternatively 5.8.0
with an additional MakeMaker min dep.

guenther

--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}


jp at saucer

Jun 25, 2009, 8:16 AM

Post #3 of 8 (540 views)
Permalink
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x? [In reply to]

My oldest server has 5.8, and it's a really out of date box.
My newest out-of-date box has 5.8.8-36 (opensuse 10.2).

Antispam and email is a fast changing technology (compared to other server
things like file and print and http), so I see no reason why people should try
to adapt an old system to todays needs. I don't keep email servers around for
more than three years, and that's pushing it. A lot has changed in three
years, in every aspect, volume of email/spam, software, antivirus, processing
demands, storage demands, etc... If a mail server is more than three years
old, it's likely overdue for a lot more things than just a spamassassin
update.

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 09:44:08AM +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> For the upcoming release, we're considering dropping support for that
> interpreter version. If you're still using 5.6.x, or know of a
> (relatively recent) distro that does, please reply to highlight
> this....
>
> --j.

--
/*
Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL
KB1IOJ | Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting
http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Maine http://www.midcoast.com/
*/


felicity at apache

Jun 25, 2009, 9:11 AM

Post #4 of 8 (532 views)
Permalink
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x? [In reply to]

fwiw, the decision to drop support for older perls isn't really about
"those folks don't get support for their OS" or "it's old so let's
drop it". In the "let's drop 5.0 support and require 5.6" decision
process, it was about "we are having a hard time supporting the 5.0
series with numerous regexp issues and if (perl_ver < 5.6) { } else {}
sections".

I don't think we have a large number of those types of issues, so I
don't think there's a huge reason to drop support for older perls for
those people who still, for whatever reason, use them.

My oldest machine, running Fedora Core 2, has 5.8. fwiw.


2009/6/25 Karsten Bräckelmann <guenther [at] rudersport>:
> On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 09:44 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
>> For the upcoming release, we're considering dropping support for that
>> interpreter version.  If you're still using 5.6.x, or know of a
>> (relatively recent) distro that does, please reply to highlight
>> this....
>
> Deliberately keeping this to the dev list.
>
> With my previous comment I was specifically referring to comments like
> in bug 5574. Comment 11 outlines the general age of Perl releases and
> the Linux part of the picture. Comment 21 argues about MacOS. Anyone
> know details about BSD, Solaris and maybe others?
>
> Also, of course, I was about fixing bug 6131 properly. Hence me
> explicitly mentioning requiring Perl 5.8.1 -- or alternatively 5.8.0
> with an additional MakeMaker min dep.
>
>  guenther
>
> --
> char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
> main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
> (c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
>
>


guenther at rudersport

Jun 25, 2009, 10:46 AM

Post #5 of 8 (533 views)
Permalink
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x? [In reply to]

On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 12:11 -0400, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> fwiw, the decision to drop support for older perls isn't really about
> "those folks don't get support for their OS" or "it's old so let's
> drop it".

Nope, and it isn't necessarily introducing an incompatibility either. It
is a conscious decision the actively support recent-ish Perl. It does
not imply SA not running on 5.6 (maybe with some customization).

It does however mean that we will not have to work around any Perl 5.6
issues during the entire SA 3.3 lifetime. Keeping compatibility is a
nice bonus if feasible, but we are not guaranteeing it.

> In the "let's drop 5.0 support and require 5.6" decision
> process, it was about "we are having a hard time supporting the 5.0
> series with numerous regexp issues and if (perl_ver < 5.6) { } else {}
> sections".

See bug 5574. Even 2 years ago we where "having a hard time supporting"
5.6 (as you put it so nicely ;), because there was no infrastructure to
test compatibility on the devs end.

Even worse, that very bug shows that critical fixes might need to be
back-ported. That means smoke-testing on ancient Perl 5.6 up to the end
of the 3.4(!) lifetime.


> I don't think we have a large number of those types of issues, so I
> don't think there's a huge reason to drop support for older perls for
> those people who still, for whatever reason, use them.

Also, keep the nasty hacks in mind (bug 6131), which effectively means
we are incompatible with the latest Perl, for the sake of Perl 5.6
compatibility. That's a bad trade-off.

guenther


> > With my previous comment I was specifically referring to comments like
> > in bug 5574. Comment 11 outlines the general age of Perl releases and
> > the Linux part of the picture. Comment 21 argues about MacOS. Anyone
> > know details about BSD, Solaris and maybe others?
> >
> > Also, of course, I was about fixing bug 6131 properly. Hence me
> > explicitly mentioning requiring Perl 5.8.1 -- or alternatively 5.8.0
> > with an additional MakeMaker min dep.

--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}


felicity at apache

Jun 25, 2009, 11:43 AM

Post #6 of 8 (547 views)
Permalink
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x? [In reply to]

2009/6/25 Karsten Bräckelmann <guenther [at] rudersport>:
> See bug 5574. Even 2 years ago we where "having a hard time supporting"
> 5.6 (as you put it so nicely ;), because there was no infrastructure to
> test compatibility on the devs end.

If we needed to install perl 5.6 somewhere, we could do so. It's not
terribly difficult to get it installed w/ the required modules.
That said, the argument here is basically that we collectively seem to
have little time or interest to support 5.6. So in the open-source
"if this is important to you, pony up some time and handle it" way,
drop it and let someone handle it if they really have a problem with
it.

> Also, keep the nasty hacks in mind (bug 6131), which effectively means
> we are incompatible with the latest Perl, for the sake of Perl 5.6
> compatibility. That's a bad trade-off.

Sure. My POV is that we should make SA focus on Perl 5.8, and then if
there need to be a few small hacks to work on 5.6 that's fine. If we
find that "a few small hacks" is really "not feasible" or "large and
annoying hacks", then sure.

To be honest, I haven't been following things w/ SA in a while, so
there could well be a lot of issues that I don't know about and so
yeah drop 5.6 support. But if it's not a lot of work to keep it
going, we may as well do so IMO. In the realm of "if it's not broke
...", I would assume those folks using 5.6 because it's stable don't
want to be forced into upgrading it (and deal with the likely crap-ton
of dependency issues) just because of SA.


This reminds me that this was one of the purposes of the sa-update
User-Agent setting... It would let us track some versioning
information from clients. Perhaps we should add $] for future
versions? Not that we actually have ever done anything w/ this
information...


michael.monnerie at is

Jun 25, 2009, 1:01 PM

Post #7 of 8 (535 views)
Permalink
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x? [In reply to]

On Donnerstag 25 Juni 2009 Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> Also, keep the nasty hacks in mind (bug 6131), which effectively
> means we are incompatible with the latest Perl, for the sake of Perl
> 5.6 compatibility. That's a bad trade-off.

I'd like to say the same as jp:
> My oldest server has 5.8, and it's a really out of date box.

If 5.6 support makes problems, trash it. People with perl 5.6 can stay
on the actual version of SA, it won't stop working.
But please, new releases should not be incompatible with other software
new releases (as you say for bug 6131).

mfg zmi
--
// Michael Monnerie, Ing.BSc ----- http://it-management.at
// Tel: 0660 / 415 65 31 .network.your.ideas.
// PGP Key: "curl -s http://zmi.at/zmi.asc | gpg --import"
// Fingerprint: AC19 F9D5 36ED CD8A EF38 500E CE14 91F7 1C12 09B4
// Keyserver: wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net Key-ID: 1C1209B4


wtogami at redhat

Jun 27, 2009, 9:51 PM

Post #8 of 8 (473 views)
Permalink
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x? [In reply to]

On 06/25/2009 04:44 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
> For the upcoming release, we're considering dropping support for that
> interpreter version. If you're still using 5.6.x, or know of a
> (relatively recent) distro that does, please reply to highlight
> this....
>
> --j.

FWIW,

RHEL-3 perl-5.8.0
spamassassin-2.55 (and will never be upgraded, so Red Hat does not care
about newer version of spamassassin supporting perl-5.8.0.)
RHEL-4 perl-5.8.5
spamassassin-3.2.4
RHEL-5 perl-5.8.8
spamassassin-3.2.5
RHEL-6 perl-5.10.x (whatever is latest when it happens)

After spamassassin-3.3.x happens, it is my desire to upgrade
spamassassin in RHEL-4, RHEL-5 and RHEL-6. I suspect RHEL-4 might not
happen though. More likely to happen in RHEL-5 a few months after
RHEL-6 has it.

Warren

SpamAssassin devel RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.