Re: Let's bump the minimum Perl version to 5.8

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 24, 2010, 13:32 UTC
Message-ID: <AANLkTim8aPoOkzzf4c0JHbBDVa4zJY2xM3v9fXQ-px=V@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinRcGa3r_=D87G-4-qqdsFL9CKnawD=DCnRQ+7v@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 13:08, Tor Arntsen <tor@spacetec.no> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 14:56, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> However, I'd like to shift the discussion a bit: Do we want to support
>> the 5.6 line *at all* anymore? I don't think so. As you point out
>> yourself you can just compile 5.8 or later on these machines.
>
> 5.8 as minimum is probably for the best. It's not that just you can
> compile a newer version (5.8), more importantly, Perl 5.8 is available
> as a package from those semi-official 3party repositories for most
> systems (at least the *nix systems I have access to)

Do those repositories also have 5.10 and 5.12?

> except for those like Irix 6.2 where it's hopeless anyway (perl
> 5.0). But I only have access to irix/aix/solaris/tru64 in addition
> to Linux.

Hrm, 6.2 is old, but 5.12 is known to compile on 6.5 at least. What are the issues with 6.2? Perhaps they could be solved if someone with such a machine contributed a smoker for the perl core.

Perl is very portable with people willing to port it, the main limitation is usually that porters don't have access to obscure systems, not that there isn't interest.