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.
