develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from March 2018

Re: RFC: Remove support for Ultrix?

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Karl Williamson
Date:
March 28, 2018 14:56
Subject:
Re: RFC: Remove support for Ultrix?
Message ID:
ec65e846-c569-9ed6-f61e-484d3cf13a1b@khwilliamson.com
On 03/28/2018 04:54 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 10:01:26PM +0200, Sawyer X wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03/13/2018 08:05 PM, Karl Williamson wrote:
>>> There is some complicated code for Ultrix in locale.c that I've never
>>> been comfortable with.  Now I find that the last release of this OS
>>> was in 1995, and the last post in comp.lang.ultrix was in 2013 (ilmari
>>> checked that)
>>>
>>> I added this comment some years ago
>>>
>>> /* XXX This is to preserve old behavior for Ultrix
>>>   * when i==0, but I (khw) don't think that behavior makes much
>>>   * sense */
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like to get rid of that, and from having to spend time on
>>> considering this special case when working with this file.
>>>
>>> I'm thinking we don't need to keep up support for this OS any longer.
>>
>> If the OS is outdated and unsupported, it is possible (dare some might
>> say, likely) it won't build on new versions of Perl for other reasons. A
>> different problem, raised previously by Jim, I think, is that we have no
>> way of verifying it still works - and any outdated OS we also do not
>> have access to makes it doubly difficult to maintain the code for. If
>> the code in question is in the way, it's good reason to remove it.
>>
>> Any objections?
> 
> My (lovely) Ultrix box died a while ago, so I have nothing left on which
> to test this.  In general, I would not advocate removing support for an
> OS just because we are unable to test it, but there is a difference if
> that means managing complicated code just for that OS.  That seems to be
> the case here, so in this case I would also not be against dropping
> Ultrix support.

I can answer just this portion of your email.  Yes, there is complicated 
code for just Ultrix, that I'm not confident works correctly.
> 
> As I recall, Ultrix did not support dynamic loading.  Do will still
> support any OS with this limitation, or does dropping Ultrix mean that
> we can also drop support for only static builds?  And if so, is that
> actually of any value or are we just always following the static build
> path in that case?  Perhaps Configure can be simplified?
> 

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About