Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:15, Jan P. Kesslersal...@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?
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...@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;il;i++){ i%8? c=1:
(c=*++x); c128 (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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
2009/6/25 Ned Slider n...@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?
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?
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, uh...@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?
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 07:11, Per Jessenp...@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?
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 Mainehttp://www.midcoast.com/ */
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
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 hoogen...@bio.umass.edu --- Erdös 4
Re: How many people are still using perl 5.6.x?
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?
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:09, Chris Hoogendykhoogen...@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?
On 6/25/2009 11:27 PM, John Rudd wrote: On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:09, Chris Hoogendykhoogen...@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?
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 Ninjasa-l...@alexb.ch wrote: On 6/25/2009 11:27 PM, John Rudd wrote: On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:09, Chris Hoogendykhoogen...@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?
Yet Another Ninja wrote: On 6/25/2009 11:27 PM, John Rudd wrote: On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:09, Chris Hoogendykhoogen...@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 hoogen...@bio.umass.edu --- Erdös 4
