Minimum version of perl supported?

[Steve Hay <St...@verosoftware.com>]

The README file currently lists three different minimum perl versions
supported by mod_perl, depending on how mod_perl is to be built:

* 5.6.1 for dynamic mod_perl with prefork mpm, or static mod_perl with
prefork mpm and ithreads support
* 5.8.0 for dynamic or static mod_perl with non-prefork mpm and ithreads
support
* 5.8.2 for static mod_perl with prefork mpm and without ithreads
support

I only build mod_perl on Windows and never build it static, but using a
default perl configuration (which is with ithreads on Windows) I find
that mod_perl (from svn) currently doesn't build with 5.8.0:

mod_perl.lo : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol
__imp__PL_op_mutex referenced in function _modperl_sys_term
mod_perl.lo : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol
__imp__PL_thr_key referenced in function _modperl_sys_term
mod_perl.lo : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol
__imp__PL_curinterp referenced in function _modperl_sys_term

It builds and tests ok (bar one or two test failures) with 5.8.1 and
5.8.2, though.

I haven't looked much into trying to fix it, but should I bother at all?
Is it wiser to simply increase the minimum version of perl supported?
Some folks are doubtless still using 5.8.x, but I doubt that there is
any demand for 5.8.0. And is anyone seriously still using 5.6.x? Even if
they are, do we need to say that we "support" it?!

Perhaps it would be sensible to increase the minimum supported version
to 5.8.2 for whatever flavour is being built?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@perl.apache.org

Re: Minimum version of perl supported?

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>]

+1.




>________________________________
> From: Steve Hay <St...@verosoftware.com>
>To: Adam Prime <ad...@utoronto.ca>; dev@perl.apache.org 
>Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 2:05 PM
>Subject: RE: Minimum version of perl supported?
> 
>The core's version of old already excludes 5.12. According to
>perlpolicy.pod, only the two most recent stable release series are
>supported: currently 5.14 and 5.16, and with the imminent release of
>5.18 that means 5.14 will drop off support too.
>
>Do we want to be that drastic? It's quite a change from the current
>README, but I don't see why not. I always have the impression that
>people are keen to use the latest stable Apache, so why shouldn't we
>expect them to use recent perls too? We aren't saying that it doesn't
>work with perls older than 5.14, just that we don't undertake to solve
>problems with such perls (although we still might if, as you say, it
>happens to be a two-line change to do so).
>
>So I would be in favour of changing the README to say that we only
>undertake to support currently supported perl versions (we don't even
>need to enumerate them, just leave the statement at that), and maybe add
>a note to the effect that things are currently known to work back to
>5.8.2 (and possibly earlier in some configurations) but that this is not
>officially supported.
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Adam Prime [mailto:adam.prime@utoronto.ca]
>> Sent: 18 March 2013 12:39
>> To: dev@perl.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Minimum version of perl supported?
>> 
>> I can't find the thread, but i think when we last ran into a
>> compatibility problem with 5.8 and newer perls we decided that we
>> weren't going to support anything "old" unless it was easy.  In that
>> case it was a two line change to support 5.8, so we did.
>> 
>> I'm not sure how we want to define "old" right now though.  I'd guess
>> we might want to stick to whatever core's version of old is (which i
>> think might mean that 5.12 is on the edge of becoming 'old'.
>> 
>> The README clearly needs to get updated.
>> 
>> Adam
>> 
>> On 03/18/2013 05:23 AM, Steve Hay wrote:
>> > The README file currently lists three different minimum perl
>versions
>> > supported by mod_perl, depending on how mod_perl is to be built:
>> >
>> > * 5.6.1 for dynamic mod_perl with prefork mpm, or static mod_perl
>> with
>> > prefork mpm and ithreads support
>> > * 5.8.0 for dynamic or static mod_perl with non-prefork mpm and
>> > ithreads support
>> > * 5.8.2 for static mod_perl with prefork mpm and without ithreads
>> > support
>> >
>> > I only build mod_perl on Windows and never build it static, but
>using
>> > a default perl configuration (which is with ithreads on Windows) I
>> > find that mod_perl (from svn) currently doesn't build with 5.8.0:
>> >
>> > mod_perl.lo : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol
>> > __imp__PL_op_mutex referenced in function _modperl_sys_term
>> > mod_perl.lo : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol
>> > __imp__PL_thr_key referenced in function _modperl_sys_term
>> mod_perl.lo
>> > : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol __imp__PL_curinterp
>> > referenced in function _modperl_sys_term
>> >
>> > It builds and tests ok (bar one or two test failures) with 5.8.1 and
>> > 5.8.2, though.
>> >
>> > I haven't looked much into trying to fix it, but should I bother at
>> all?
>> > Is it wiser to simply increase the minimum version of perl
>supported?
>> > Some folks are doubtless still using 5.8.x, but I doubt that there
>is
>> > any demand for 5.8.0. And is anyone seriously still using 5.6.x?
>Even
>> > if they are, do we need to say that we "support" it?!
>> >
>> > Perhaps it would be sensible to increase the minimum supported
>> version
>> > to 5.8.2 for whatever flavour is being built?
>> >
>> >
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org For
>> additional
>> > commands, e-mail: dev-help@perl.apache.org
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org For additional
>> commands, e-mail: dev-help@perl.apache.org
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@perl.apache.org
>
>
>
>

Re: Minimum version of perl supported?

[Adam Prime <ad...@utoronto.ca>]

Sounds good to me

On 13-03-18 02:05 PM, Steve Hay wrote:
> The core's version of old already excludes 5.12. According to
> perlpolicy.pod, only the two most recent stable release series are
> supported: currently 5.14 and 5.16, and with the imminent release of
> 5.18 that means 5.14 will drop off support too.
>
> Do we want to be that drastic? It's quite a change from the current
> README, but I don't see why not. I always have the impression that
> people are keen to use the latest stable Apache, so why shouldn't we
> expect them to use recent perls too? We aren't saying that it doesn't
> work with perls older than 5.14, just that we don't undertake to solve
> problems with such perls (although we still might if, as you say, it
> happens to be a two-line change to do so).
>
> So I would be in favour of changing the README to say that we only
> undertake to support currently supported perl versions (we don't even
> need to enumerate them, just leave the statement at that), and maybe add
> a note to the effect that things are currently known to work back to
> 5.8.2 (and possibly earlier in some configurations) but that this is not
> officially supported.
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@perl.apache.org

RE: Minimum version of perl supported?

[Steve Hay <St...@verosoftware.com>]

The core's version of old already excludes 5.12. According to
perlpolicy.pod, only the two most recent stable release series are
supported: currently 5.14 and 5.16, and with the imminent release of
5.18 that means 5.14 will drop off support too.

Do we want to be that drastic? It's quite a change from the current
README, but I don't see why not. I always have the impression that
people are keen to use the latest stable Apache, so why shouldn't we
expect them to use recent perls too? We aren't saying that it doesn't
work with perls older than 5.14, just that we don't undertake to solve
problems with such perls (although we still might if, as you say, it
happens to be a two-line change to do so).

So I would be in favour of changing the README to say that we only
undertake to support currently supported perl versions (we don't even
need to enumerate them, just leave the statement at that), and maybe add
a note to the effect that things are currently known to work back to
5.8.2 (and possibly earlier in some configurations) but that this is not
officially supported.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Prime [mailto:adam.prime@utoronto.ca]
> Sent: 18 March 2013 12:39
> To: dev@perl.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Minimum version of perl supported?
> 
> I can't find the thread, but i think when we last ran into a
> compatibility problem with 5.8 and newer perls we decided that we
> weren't going to support anything "old" unless it was easy.  In that
> case it was a two line change to support 5.8, so we did.
> 
> I'm not sure how we want to define "old" right now though.  I'd guess
> we might want to stick to whatever core's version of old is (which i
> think might mean that 5.12 is on the edge of becoming 'old'.
> 
> The README clearly needs to get updated.
> 
> Adam
> 
> On 03/18/2013 05:23 AM, Steve Hay wrote:
> > The README file currently lists three different minimum perl
versions
> > supported by mod_perl, depending on how mod_perl is to be built:
> >
> > * 5.6.1 for dynamic mod_perl with prefork mpm, or static mod_perl
> with
> > prefork mpm and ithreads support
> > * 5.8.0 for dynamic or static mod_perl with non-prefork mpm and
> > ithreads support
> > * 5.8.2 for static mod_perl with prefork mpm and without ithreads
> > support
> >
> > I only build mod_perl on Windows and never build it static, but
using
> > a default perl configuration (which is with ithreads on Windows) I
> > find that mod_perl (from svn) currently doesn't build with 5.8.0:
> >
> > mod_perl.lo : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol
> > __imp__PL_op_mutex referenced in function _modperl_sys_term
> > mod_perl.lo : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol
> > __imp__PL_thr_key referenced in function _modperl_sys_term
> mod_perl.lo
> > : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol __imp__PL_curinterp
> > referenced in function _modperl_sys_term
> >
> > It builds and tests ok (bar one or two test failures) with 5.8.1 and
> > 5.8.2, though.
> >
> > I haven't looked much into trying to fix it, but should I bother at
> all?
> > Is it wiser to simply increase the minimum version of perl
supported?
> > Some folks are doubtless still using 5.8.x, but I doubt that there
is
> > any demand for 5.8.0. And is anyone seriously still using 5.6.x?
Even
> > if they are, do we need to say that we "support" it?!
> >
> > Perhaps it would be sensible to increase the minimum supported
> version
> > to 5.8.2 for whatever flavour is being built?
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org For
> additional
> > commands, e-mail: dev-help@perl.apache.org
> >
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org For additional
> commands, e-mail: dev-help@perl.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@perl.apache.org

Re: Minimum version of perl supported?

[Adam Prime <ad...@utoronto.ca>]

I can't find the thread, but i think when we last ran into a
compatibility problem with 5.8 and newer perls we decided that we
weren't going to support anything "old" unless it was easy.  In that
case it was a two line change to support 5.8, so we did.

I'm not sure how we want to define "old" right now though.  I'd guess we
might want to stick to whatever core's version of old is (which i think
might mean that 5.12 is on the edge of becoming 'old'.

The README clearly needs to get updated.

Adam

On 03/18/2013 05:23 AM, Steve Hay wrote:
> The README file currently lists three different minimum perl versions
> supported by mod_perl, depending on how mod_perl is to be built:
>
> * 5.6.1 for dynamic mod_perl with prefork mpm, or static mod_perl with
> prefork mpm and ithreads support
> * 5.8.0 for dynamic or static mod_perl with non-prefork mpm and ithreads
> support
> * 5.8.2 for static mod_perl with prefork mpm and without ithreads
> support
>
> I only build mod_perl on Windows and never build it static, but using a
> default perl configuration (which is with ithreads on Windows) I find
> that mod_perl (from svn) currently doesn't build with 5.8.0:
>
> mod_perl.lo : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol
> __imp__PL_op_mutex referenced in function _modperl_sys_term
> mod_perl.lo : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol
> __imp__PL_thr_key referenced in function _modperl_sys_term
> mod_perl.lo : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol
> __imp__PL_curinterp referenced in function _modperl_sys_term
>
> It builds and tests ok (bar one or two test failures) with 5.8.1 and
> 5.8.2, though.
>
> I haven't looked much into trying to fix it, but should I bother at all?
> Is it wiser to simply increase the minimum version of perl supported?
> Some folks are doubtless still using 5.8.x, but I doubt that there is
> any demand for 5.8.0. And is anyone seriously still using 5.6.x? Even if
> they are, do we need to say that we "support" it?!
>
> Perhaps it would be sensible to increase the minimum supported version
> to 5.8.2 for whatever flavour is being built?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@perl.apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@perl.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@perl.apache.org