On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Craig A. Berry wrote:
> 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.
The standard licenses work just fine as far as I know. I think the Vax C
license will even work still. I can check that, though.
> 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.
I know we have issues with Dec C 4.0. I think 5.2 was the first real solid
version of Dec C, but I might be over-remembering the problems with older
versions.
Dan
