Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2009
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Dave Mitchell wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 01:41:57AM -0700, Jan Dubois wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Sisyphus wrote: "Jan Dubois" > > <jand@activestate.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Could you try the attached patch to see if it normalizes the Perl behavior > > > > regarding $^X and @INC again? > > [...] > > > > + GetLongPathNameW(modulename, modulename, sizeof(modulename)/sizeof(WCHAR)); > > [...] > > > No good, I'm afraid. > > > > Sorry, my bad. Please replace all 3 occurances of "modulename" above with "fullname". > > > > [...] > > > > > I've just been told (on mingw-users list) that for this to work, we need to > > > have: > > > > > > #define _WIN32_WINNT 0x0500 > > > > Ah yes, GetLongPathName() requires Windows 2000 or later, so it needs some > > GetProcAddr() dance instead. > > Will this appear as a blead commit that I can can add to 5.10.1? I'll rework the change so that it will correctly degrade on Windows NT and Windows 9X and submit it to blead. Should be done later today. > > Or maybe we should discuss if there is any point > > in trying to pretend that we still support Windows 9X. And if we can drop 9X, > > then I would like to drop NT as well. Nobody is running those systems anymore, > > so I think it should be fine to say that Perl 5.10 is the last version that still > > supports these obsolete versions. > > Is that somethinbg that needs to go in the 5.10.1 perldelta? Nominally we still support Windows 9X and NT with 5.10 (at least running on 9X, I don't think you could build Perl on Win 9X in a long while). But since nobody is testing these platforms anymore, I'm not sure how well it will really work. I'm proposing to drop these platforms in 5.12, not 5.10.1. So I'll rewrite the code above so that it _should_ work on those legacy platforms, but I'm not going to actually test it either. I do build and test regularly on Windows 2000 though, which is the oldest Windows version that still receives updates for security vulnerabilities. I'm not suggesting to drop Windows 2000. Cheers, -Jan