Am 02.06.2014 17:42, schrieb Theodore Ts'o: > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 03:38:22PM +0200, [email protected] wrote: >> * How much do you gain by removing support for the platform? >> >> Is there any relevant amount of code, that is really NT/2000/XP specific >> and unneeded for newer Windows releases? Breaking the support for >> the ancient platform by removing just a dozen lines of code seems like >> an unnecessary annoyance to (admittedly few) users. >> If on the other hand you can throw away hundreds of lines of code that >> nobody understands or even looks at, then go for it ... > What I'd suggest is as people create lists of legacy OS's that might > be removed, along with a deprecation schedule, that there also be an > explanation about why support for an ancient OS is causing pain. Even > if the decision is to support some legacy system for some period of > time, an explanation of what code could be removed when it can finally > be dropped would be good to have archived, so that people don't have > to rediscover and reargue the case for why VMS deserves live over and > over again. :-) +1 > The other thing to consider is that perhaps OpenBSD really has the > right approach, which is that portability should be done via support > libraries, and not part of the core code. That might impact > performance on some legacy piece of cr*p, but presumably, impacted > performance is better than no support at all, or some massive security > hole that resulted from having to support legacy code hiding some > horrible security bug.... +1 In my opinion this could be also a good way for OpenSSL.
Jan ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [email protected] Automated List Manager [email protected]
