Hello! On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 10:47:48AM -0800, PGNet Dev wrote:
> > Well, this depends on your point of view. If a project which > > actually developed the library fails to introduce support to the > > new version of the library - for an external observer this > > suggests that there is something wrong with the new version. > > FUD 'suggestions' simply aren't needed. Sure, they aren't. What is wrong with PCRE2 is clear from the very start: it's a different library with different API. And supporting PCRE2 is a question of advantages of PCRE2 over PCRE. > The Exim project didn't develop the pcre2 library ... Philip Hazel did > (https://www.pcre.org/current/doc/html/pcre2.html#SEC4), as a separate > project. Philip Hazel developed both Exim and the PCRE library, "originally written for the Exim MTA". And PCRE2 claims to be a "major version" of the PCRE library. > Exim's last (? something newer out there?) rationale for not adopting it > was simply, > > https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1878 > > "The original PCRE support is not broken. > > If it is going to go away, then adding PCRE2 support becomes much more > important, but I've seen nobody saying that yet." I've posted this link in my first response in this thread 4 month ago. The same rationale applies to any project already using the PCRE library. -- Maxim Dounin http://mdounin.ru/ _______________________________________________ nginx-devel mailing list nginx-devel@nginx.org http://mailman.nginx.org/mailman/listinfo/nginx-devel