You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org> on 2009/06/25 10:44:08 UTC
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.
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by jp <jp...@saucer.midcoast.com>.
My oldest server has 5.8, and it's a really out of date box.
My newest out-of-date box has 5.8.8-36 (opensuse 10.2).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/
*/
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by Per Jessen <pe...@computer.org>.
Henrik K wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 02:36:15PM +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>> On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 13:20 +0200, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
>> > Henrik K schrieb:
>>
>> > > SA is trying to be too supportive for the money it receives. ;-)
>> > > If you ask me, just ditch this and all other old baggage for 3.3.
>> > > If you are not happy, you are free to keep running 3.2. Some
>> > > people are even still using 3.1.
>> >
>> > Good proposal, imo.
>>
>> Actually, that's pretty much exactly why we brought this up in the
>> first place. :)
>
> I'm just not sure why ask in the first place. Perl 5.6.1 is old.
> Anyone using such system most likely has no support.
And most probably doesn't need much either. I ran a 9-10 year old
release of SuSE Linux until very recently, obviously long outdated and
out of support, but I didn't need any.
I'm using perl 5.8 and 5.10, so upping the minimum to 5.8 would be fine
with me, but it's a very decent question to ask.
I guess one key question is - would continued support for 5.6 hold back
development or features in SA? If yes, it's worth upping the minimum.
/Per Jessen, Zürich
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.org>.
On Thu, June 25, 2009 14:56, Henrik K wrote:
> I'm just not sure why ask in the first place. Perl 5.6.1 is old. Anyone
> using such system most likely has no support. Anyone using such perl most
> likely shouldn't be allowed to use it. You could be already fixing the
> code and not waiting. ;)
old programs is more or less also bug free unless some update the problem :)
--
xpoint
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by Henrik K <he...@hege.li>.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 02:36:15PM +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 13:20 +0200, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
> > Henrik K schrieb:
>
> > > SA is trying to be too supportive for the money it receives. ;-) If you ask
> > > me, just ditch this and all other old baggage for 3.3. If you are not happy,
> > > you are free to keep running 3.2. Some people are even still using 3.1.
> >
> > Good proposal, imo.
>
> Actually, that's pretty much exactly why we brought this up in the first
> place. :)
I'm just not sure why ask in the first place. Perl 5.6.1 is old. Anyone
using such system most likely has no support. Anyone using such perl most
likely shouldn't be allowed to use it. You could be already fixing the code
and not waiting. ;)
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by John Rudd <jr...@ucsc.edu>.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 07:11, Per Jessen<pe...@computer.org> wrote:
> John Rudd wrote:
>
>> I've seen LOTS of so-focused-on-stability "if it ain't broke, don't
>> upgrade it" type shops in the Solaris arena ...
>
> You'll likely find that in any production environment that is concerned
> about uptime. The less change, the more uptime.
Yes, _I_ know the environment that causes it, but in these days of
lots of projects that expect upgrade-itis, I usually feel the need to
explain at least a tiny bit.
(and not just environments concerned about uptime, it can instead be
concerned about service stability. that's not necessarily about
uptime, but can instead be about consistency of user experience)
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by Theo Van Dinter <fe...@apache.org>.
Well, the point is that if it works, don't break it.
Yes, you can totally avoid upgrades, depending on your environment.
Sometimes you have no choice and continue to run old versions of
software or firmware or ...
Get over it. :)
If you want to continue debating system administration issues, there
are several lists to do so (go to sage or lopsa, for example). The
goal for this thread is to get a sense of how many people are still
running SA on Perl 5.6 and therefore how disruptive would it be to the
user base to require a newer version of Perl for newer versions of SA.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Yet Another Ninja<sa...@alexb.ch> wrote:
> On 6/25/2009 11:27 PM, John Rudd wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:09, Chris Hoogendyk<ho...@bio.umass.edu>
>> wrote:
>>> Gone are the days when you totally avoided upgrades because of the time,
>>> hassle and risk involved.
>>
>> Time and hassle, maybe. Risk, no. Risk is not a binary, it's a
>> balancing act. Live updates don't remove risk, they simply alter the
>> risk balance. There will always be applications and environments
>> where risk is high enough that will cause you to wait.
> can we get back to Spamassassin and a sane update cycle context? .-)
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by Chris Hoogendyk <ho...@bio.umass.edu>.
Yet Another Ninja wrote:
> On 6/25/2009 11:27 PM, John Rudd wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:09, Chris
>> Hoogendyk<ho...@bio.umass.edu> wrote:
>>> Gone are the days when you totally avoided upgrades because of the
>>> time,
>>> hassle and risk involved.
>>
>> Time and hassle, maybe. Risk, no. Risk is not a binary, it's a
>> balancing act. Live updates don't remove risk, they simply alter the
>> risk balance. There will always be applications and environments
>> where risk is high enough that will cause you to wait.
>>
>> For example, your 2 minutes of downtime... on wall street that could
>> cost you millions of dollars of stalled or canceled transactions.
>> (well, not lately, but before the crash...) So, your CFO will ask
>> you: is the risk of upgrading vs not upgrading worth a couple million
>> dollars? If the upgrade isn't worth it, then they will likely choose
>> to avoid it. Like I said "if isn't broken, don't upgrade", which
>> translates to "don't upgrade until the cost of not upgrading exceeds
>> the lost revenue of your outage window".
>>
>> (and redundant systems may OR MAY NOT mitigate that)
>
> can we get back to Spamassassin and a sane update cycle context? .-)
nah. I think we should get back to SORBS bites, and so does res, and so
does so and so, etc. ;-)
actually, my point was that there is not much excuse for not having a
more up-to-date perl these days, so yeah, go ahead and boot 5.6.x. If
there are legacy or OS things that require the older perl, you can
actully have your cake and eat it too. My Solaris 9 installs still have
/usr/bin/perl, which is 5.6.1, and the OS stuff from Solaris can still
use that. I have 5.8.7 in /usr/local/bin/perl on the Solaris 9 systems,
and SpamAssassin uses that. It's easy to manage $PATH and the #! lines
of scripts.
So, go for it.
--
---------------
Chris Hoogendyk
-
O__ ---- Systems Administrator
c/ /'_ --- Biology & Geology Departments
(*) \(*) -- 140 Morrill Science Center
~~~~~~~~~~ - University of Massachusetts, Amherst
<ho...@bio.umass.edu>
---------------
Erdös 4
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by Yet Another Ninja <sa...@alexb.ch>.
On 6/25/2009 11:27 PM, John Rudd wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:09, Chris Hoogendyk<ho...@bio.umass.edu> wrote:
>> Gone are the days when you totally avoided upgrades because of the time,
>> hassle and risk involved.
>
>
> Time and hassle, maybe. Risk, no. Risk is not a binary, it's a
> balancing act. Live updates don't remove risk, they simply alter the
> risk balance. There will always be applications and environments
> where risk is high enough that will cause you to wait.
>
> For example, your 2 minutes of downtime... on wall street that could
> cost you millions of dollars of stalled or canceled transactions.
> (well, not lately, but before the crash...) So, your CFO will ask
> you: is the risk of upgrading vs not upgrading worth a couple million
> dollars? If the upgrade isn't worth it, then they will likely choose
> to avoid it. Like I said "if isn't broken, don't upgrade", which
> translates to "don't upgrade until the cost of not upgrading exceeds
> the lost revenue of your outage window".
>
> (and redundant systems may OR MAY NOT mitigate that)
can we get back to Spamassassin and a sane update cycle context? .-)
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by John Rudd <jr...@ucsc.edu>.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:09, Chris Hoogendyk<ho...@bio.umass.edu> wrote:
>
> Gone are the days when you totally avoided upgrades because of the time,
> hassle and risk involved.
Time and hassle, maybe. Risk, no. Risk is not a binary, it's a
balancing act. Live updates don't remove risk, they simply alter the
risk balance. There will always be applications and environments
where risk is high enough that will cause you to wait.
For example, your 2 minutes of downtime... on wall street that could
cost you millions of dollars of stalled or canceled transactions.
(well, not lately, but before the crash...) So, your CFO will ask
you: is the risk of upgrading vs not upgrading worth a couple million
dollars? If the upgrade isn't worth it, then they will likely choose
to avoid it. Like I said "if isn't broken, don't upgrade", which
translates to "don't upgrade until the cost of not upgrading exceeds
the lost revenue of your outage window".
(and redundant systems may OR MAY NOT mitigate that)
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by Chris Hoogendyk <ho...@bio.umass.edu>.
Per Jessen wrote:
> John Rudd wrote:
>
>
>> I've seen LOTS of so-focused-on-stability "if it ain't broke, don't
>> upgrade it" type shops in the Solaris arena ...
>>
>
> You'll likely find that in any production environment that is concerned
> about uptime. The less change, the more uptime.
As far as Solaris goes, I typically update my core utilities like perl
and put them in /usr/local. I also change the $PATH in /etc/profile so
that /usr/local/bin comes first. That gives me control over what I and
my users see.
I replaced Solaris 7 with 8 seems like 9 or 10 years ago. Solaris 7 was
too hackable. Now, I haven't used Solaris 8 in about 4 years and am
currently replacing my Solaris 9 boxes with Solaris 10 boxes. However,
even in the newest, I still typically update my core utilities like
perl. I simply need more control over them and need them to be more
up-to-date, whether I compile them myself or get them from sunfreeware.
As far as down time ;) , earlier this week I updated a couple of my
Solaris 10 boxes. I went from Solaris 10 5/08 U5 to Solaris 10 5/09 U7.
I did the update during peak hours and also applied the latest
recommended and security patches. Since I did it using Live Upgrade,
users were totally unaware, and services continued as though nothing
were going on. Then after the end of the work day, I issued an `init 6`.
When the server came back up a minute or two later, I checked all the
services, checked the update status, and then went home myself. If there
had been a problem, I could have reverted and booted off the original
image, leaving me right where I had started.
Gone are the days when you totally avoided upgrades because of the time,
hassle and risk involved.
Note also that Solaris 9 is now entering EOL. In the second stage of EOL
(where 8 is now, I believe), they no longer provide patches. This can be
a serious problem. If, for example, a serious bug is found in ssh that
allows a hack through ssh, then you are simply vulnerable unless you
upgrade your system or build and replace ssh on your own. If you are on
a private net behind a firewall, you may still be vulnerable, especially
if there is a flotilla of windows machines sitting around waiting to get
infected with whatever.
--
---------------
Chris Hoogendyk
-
O__ ---- Systems Administrator
c/ /'_ --- Biology & Geology Departments
(*) \(*) -- 140 Morrill Science Center
~~~~~~~~~~ - University of Massachusetts, Amherst
<ho...@bio.umass.edu>
---------------
Erdös 4
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by Per Jessen <pe...@computer.org>.
John Rudd wrote:
> I've seen LOTS of so-focused-on-stability "if it ain't broke, don't
> upgrade it" type shops in the Solaris arena ...
You'll likely find that in any production environment that is concerned
about uptime. The less change, the more uptime.
/Per Jessen, Zürich
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by John Rudd <jr...@ucsc.edu>.
2009/6/25 Ned Slider <ne...@unixmail.co.uk>:
> Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 13:20 +0200, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
>>>
>>> Henrik K schrieb:
>>
>>>> SA is trying to be too supportive for the money it receives. ;-) If you
>>>> ask
>>>> me, just ditch this and all other old baggage for 3.3. If you are not
>>>> happy,
>>>> you are free to keep running 3.2. Some people are even still using 3.1.
>>>
>>> Good proposal, imo.
>>
>> Actually, that's pretty much exactly why we brought this up in the first
>> place. :)
>>
>> guenther
>>
>
>
> Just for info, I checked Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and CentOS, and
> have to go back to RHEL 2 (just recently End of Life) to find perl 5.6.1.
>
> RHEL 3-5 are all 5.8.x, and are pretty popular platforms for running SA I
> would imagine :-)
Mac OS X 10.5.x = perl 5.8.8
Mac OS X 10.4.x = perl 5.8.6
(I no longer have any 10.3.x nor older Macs to check for their perl versions)
Solaris 10 (x86 and sparc) (of some patch level) = perl 5.8.4
Solaris 9 sparc (of some patch level) = perl 5.6.1
So, for Mac it seems like a very safe assumption... for Solaris, it
assumes that they're running current (which is not always a safe
assumption; I've seen LOTS of so-focused-on-stability "if it ain't
broke, don't upgrade it" type shops in the Solaris arena ... heck,
still have a Solaris _7_ box for somewhere, for that reason ... and in
financial circles, I've even seen "if it ain't broke, don't patch it"
type shops). If the Solaris system is running even 1 major revision
old, it might be in 5.6.x.
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by Ned Slider <ne...@unixmail.co.uk>.
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 13:20 +0200, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
>> Henrik K schrieb:
>
>>> SA is trying to be too supportive for the money it receives. ;-) If you ask
>>> me, just ditch this and all other old baggage for 3.3. If you are not happy,
>>> you are free to keep running 3.2. Some people are even still using 3.1.
>> Good proposal, imo.
>
> Actually, that's pretty much exactly why we brought this up in the first
> place. :)
>
> guenther
>
Just for info, I checked Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) and CentOS, and
have to go back to RHEL 2 (just recently End of Life) to find perl 5.6.1.
RHEL 3-5 are all 5.8.x, and are pretty popular platforms for running SA
I would imagine :-)
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>.
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 13:20 +0200, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
> Henrik K schrieb:
> > SA is trying to be too supportive for the money it receives. ;-) If you ask
> > me, just ditch this and all other old baggage for 3.3. If you are not happy,
> > you are free to keep running 3.2. Some people are even still using 3.1.
>
> Good proposal, imo.
Actually, that's pretty much exactly why we brought this up in the first
place. :)
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; }}}
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by LuKreme <kr...@kreme.com>.
On 25-Jun-2009, at 05:20, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
> Henrik K schrieb:
>> SA is trying to be too supportive for the money it receives. ;-) If
>> you ask
>> me, just ditch this and all other old baggage for 3.3. If you are
>> not happy,
>> you are free to keep running 3.2. Some people are even still using
>> 3.1.
>>
> Good proposal, imo.
Seconded. If it's useful to drop support for older perl, I have no
problem with requiring 5.10 for SA 3.3. or 5.10-threaded even.
--
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOFU>
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by "Jan P. Kessler" <sa...@jpkessler.info>.
Henrik K schrieb:
>> sorry, just missed the "relatively recent" statement ;-)
>>
>
> When the system gets old enough that it's not supported officially and you
> are forced to manually CPAN fresh modules (and possibly wreak havoc on the
> OS), there is no reason not to compile your own perl (or upgrade system)
> except lazyness.
>
Full Ack - this is what I do on those few ancient boxes. Additionally
there are plenty of precompiled packages (sunfreeware, blastwave, ...).
> SA is trying to be too supportive for the money it receives. ;-) If you ask
> me, just ditch this and all other old baggage for 3.3. If you are not happy,
> you are free to keep running 3.2. Some people are even still using 3.1.
>
Good proposal, imo.
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by Henrik K <he...@hege.li>.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:21:25PM +0200, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
> Jan P. Kessler schrieb:
> > Justin Mason schrieb:
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Don't know if it's still relevant: Solaris 8
> >
> > # uname -a
> > SunOS mailhub 5.8 Generic_108528-09 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-250
> >
> > # perl -v
> > This is perl, version 5.005_03 built for sun4-solaris
> >
>
> sorry, just missed the "relatively recent" statement ;-)
When the system gets old enough that it's not supported officially and you
are forced to manually CPAN fresh modules (and possibly wreak havoc on the
OS), there is no reason not to compile your own perl (or upgrade system)
except lazyness.
SA is trying to be too supportive for the money it receives. ;-) If you ask
me, just ditch this and all other old baggage for 3.3. If you are not happy,
you are free to keep running 3.2. Some people are even still using 3.1.
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by "Jan P. Kessler" <sa...@jpkessler.info>.
Jan P. Kessler schrieb:
> Justin Mason schrieb:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> Don't know if it's still relevant: Solaris 8
>
> # uname -a
> SunOS mailhub 5.8 Generic_108528-09 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-250
>
> # perl -v
> This is perl, version 5.005_03 built for sun4-solaris
>
sorry, just missed the "relatively recent" statement ;-)
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk>.
> On 25-Jun-2009, at 04:15, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
>> Don't know if it's still relevant: Solaris 8
>>
>> # uname -a
>> SunOS mailhub 5.8 Generic_108528-09 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-250
>>
>> # perl -v
>> This is perl, version 5.005_03 built for sun4-solaris
On 25.06.09 04:37, LuKreme wrote:
> 5.00? <snigger>
5.005 is actually 5.5... yes, older than 5.6
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
BSE = Mad Cow Desease ... BSA = Mad Software Producents Desease
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by LuKreme <kr...@kreme.com>.
On 25-Jun-2009, at 04:15, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
> Don't know if it's still relevant: Solaris 8
>
> # uname -a
> SunOS mailhub 5.8 Generic_108528-09 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-250
>
> # perl -v
> This is perl, version 5.005_03 built for sun4-solaris
5.00? <snigger>
;)
--
Instant karma's going to get you!
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:15, Jan P. Kessler<sa...@jpkessler.info> wrote:
> Justin Mason schrieb:
>> 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.
>>
>
> Don't know if it's still relevant: Solaris 8
>
> # uname -a
> SunOS mailhub 5.8 Generic_108528-09 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-250
>
> # perl -v
> This is perl, version 5.005_03 built for sun4-solaris
http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/support/sol8.xml :
'The Solaris 8 Operating System (OS) was originally released in
February 2000, and since then has been superseded by two later
releases: the Solaris 9 OS which was initially released in May 2002,
and the Solaris 10 OS which was initially released in January 2005.
The current update of this release is Solaris 10 5/09.
On August 16, 2006 Sun announced the transition of the Solaris 8 OS.
Per this transition:
* November 16, 2006 was the last date Solaris 8 media kits could be ordered
* Sun shipped Solaris 8 media up until February 16, 2007; Solaris
8 media kits are no longer available
* Solaris 8 entered retirement support mode Phase I on March 31, 2007;
* Solaris 8 will enter retirement support mode Phase II on March
31, 2009; and,
* Solaris 8 will reach the end of its service life on March 31, 2012.
The total service life of Solaris 8 will thus be slightly more than 12 years.'
So the OS itself is still supported. however, that perl version (in
my experience) is quite broken; whenever I've used Solaris recently
I've been sure to install third-party precompiled perls from
sunfreeware/blastwave, or built my own, and used those instead. it's
a moot point anyway, as SA 3.1.x/3.2.x doesn't support 5.005.
--j.
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by "Jan P. Kessler" <sa...@jpkessler.info>.
Justin Mason schrieb:
> 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.
>
Don't know if it's still relevant: Solaris 8
# uname -a
SunOS mailhub 5.8 Generic_108528-09 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-250
# perl -v
This is perl, version 5.005_03 built for sun4-solaris
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by LuKreme <kr...@kreme.com>.
On 25-Jun-2009, at 02:44, 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....
If moving away from 5.6 makes SA better then do it.
5.6 is pretty ancient, isn't it? Like 10 years?
--
By the way, I think you might be the prettiest girl I've ever seen
outside the pages of a really filthy magazine
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by jp <jp...@saucer.midcoast.com>.
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/
*/
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by Warren Togami <wt...@redhat.com>.
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
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by Michael Monnerie <mi...@is.it-management.at>.
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
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by Theo Van Dinter <fe...@apache.org>.
2009/6/25 Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>:
> 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...
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>.
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; }}}
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by Theo Van Dinter <fe...@apache.org>.
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 <gu...@rudersport.de>:
> 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; }}}
>
>
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
Posted by Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>.
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; }}}