Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2012
You said miniperl but you meant microperl. busybox does not depend on
microperl or distribute it but it has documentation on how to build
microperl. There may be embedded systems out there running microperl just
because they could and it would be a shame to bump off something that
actually gets used (unlike UTS support, for example).
I found a write-up by Simon about microperl and he mentioned that his work
on microperl turned up some bugs. Does the maintenance work keeping
microperl operational overshadow the bug-revealing benefit of keeping it?
David
On Aug 17, 2012 9:22 AM, "ольга крыжановская" <olga.kryzhanovska@gmail.com>
wrote:
> What about embedded users? A lot of them have long release cycles like
> 4 or 5 years and may not notice issues until a couple of major
> releases are out. Has any one contacted the busybox developers, if
> they are OK with miniperl removal?
>
> Olga
>
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:17 PM, David Golden <xdaveg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Given that we've managed to break microperl in two stable releases in
> the
> >> past 3 years without anyone noticing until some time afterwards, and it
> costs
> >> us time and effort to maintain it, I propose that we announce in 5.18.0
> that
> >> we're planning to eliminate it, and if no-one gives a good use case as
> to
> >> why to keep it, we cull it before 5.20.0 ships.
> >
> > +1
>
>
>
> --
> , _ _ ,
> { \/`o;====- Olga Kryzhanovska -====;o`\/ }
> .----'-/`-/ olga.kryzhanovska@gmail.com \-`\-'----.
> `'-..-| / http://twitter.com/fleyta \ |-..-'`
> /\/\ Solaris/BSD//C/C++ programmer /\/\
> `--` `--`
>
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next