At 02:26 PM 3/15/00 -0500, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>At 02:21 PM 3/15/00 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>I'm all for going to DEC C v6.x. I'm biased, because we've had it for a
>>bit. But to be honest, you guys are doing this for free, and if it makes your life
>easier, screw the kids who don't want to join the 21st century. If they want a
>modern perl, they need to get a modern C compiler and a modern version of VMS.
>
>Nah, I want to keep VMS 5.5-2 support in for as long as humanly possible. If we could
>convince the Q to make the C install kits freely available I'd be all for requiring
>Dec C 6.x, but I dunno if they're going to do that. (I do wish they would--I hate
>waiting for the next condist, and it's not like they're not limiting access to valid
>license holders anyway...)
I think to go from C 5.x to 6.x you have to pay for an upgrade for your
license, so it's not just a media issue.
We are de facto only supporting Perl builds with 5.2 and later since I think
I'm the only one actively testing with a compiler that old.
_______________________________________________
Craig A. Berry
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
