On 2006-01-31 09:40:32 +1100, Ron Savage wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:55:53 +0100, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
Redhat EL 2.1 perl 5.6.1 supported until May 2009
Redhat EL 3 perl 5.8.0 supported until Oct 2010
Oh. I didn't know that. Thanx.
So, if Tim wants to support those sysadmins who
Matthew Persico wrote:
On 1/27/06, Darren Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Even if you can't move, its not like 5.8 is becoming a hard
dependency, rather just a soft dependency, as I recall.
The minute Tim writes a piece of code with a construct that is new to
5.8 because
a) its cool
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 12:55:53 +0100, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
Hi Peter
Redhat EL 2.1 perl 5.6.1 supported until May 2009
Redhat EL 3 perl 5.8.0 supported until Oct 2010
Oh. I didn't know that. Thanx.
So, if Tim wants to support those sysadmins who run distributions
as long as they are
Tim,
Is this now going to be rescinded, in light of the rest of the thread
with Gisle?
Regards,
JEff
-Original Message-
From: Tim Bunce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 7:03 AM
To: dbi-users@perl.org
Subject: Future versions of DBI to require perl = 5.8
FYI
At 12:03 PM + 1/25/06, Tim Bunce wrote:
FYI I'm planning on making the next release (1.51) be the last that
officially supports perl 5.6.
This is partly to make it easier to implement changes in future
releases that improve performance with threaded perls. This will benefit
ActiveState perl
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 07:05:15AM -0500, Jeff Urlwin wrote:
Tim,
Is this now going to be rescinded, in light of the rest of the thread
with Gisle?
Possibly. Though I've had emails from people thanking me for saying
this since, they say, that's the only way their employers will be
pushed
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 14:20:31 -0800, Darren Duncan wrote:
Hi Darren
Moreover, I suggest you go a bit further and say that
5.8.1/5.008001 is the minimum version, rather than 5.8.0; no one
should actually be using 5.8.0 given all the bugs it has, and the
5.8.1 delta fixed more than any
At 10:51 AM +1100 1/28/06, Ron Savage wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 14:20:31 -0800, Darren Duncan wrote:
Moreover, I suggest you go a bit further and say that
5.8.1/5.008001 is the minimum version, rather than 5.8.0; no one
should actually be using 5.8.0 given all the bugs it has, and the
On 1/27/06, Darren Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Even if you can't move, its not like 5.8 is becoming a hard
dependency, rather just a soft dependency, as I recall.
The minute Tim writes a piece of code with a construct that is new to
5.8 because
a) its cool
b) he can
c) its probably
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:36:55 -0800, Darren Duncan wrote:
Hi Darren
Yes, and people could say that about other specific versions too.
Fair enough.
I also don't see why the Red Hat supplied distro can't be more up
to date; in fact, I would expect any ongoing contract with them to
include
10 matches
Mail list logo