Message-ID: <4A27CEAC.1090900@hagander.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:39:56 +0200
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090409)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
CC: Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: It's June 1; do you know where your release is?
References: <19107.1243873940@sss.pgh.pa.us>	
	<603c8f070906012050p6ccd62d3v13d3e0f887fe7c90@mail.gmail.com>	
	<alpine.BSO.2.00.0906020108410.15690@leary.csoft.net>	
	<15765.1243965376@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4A25C32F.30203@agliodbs.com>	
	<4A25C9A9.5010303@dunslane.net> <4A25D91B.5080401@dunslane.net>	
	<4A26FF38.8090308@dunslane.net>	
	<937d27e10906031610g341525e5j9414d8af3d8f293c@mail.gmail.com>	
	<4A270A06.1010507@dunslane.net>
	<937d27e10906040249u73ac21dds6057300011d38a2d@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A27AA1D.6000800@hagander.net> <4A27C1BB.7080909@dunslane.net>
In-Reply-To: <4A27C1BB.7080909@dunslane.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> 
> 
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> Dave Page wrote:
>>  
>>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 12:40 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>    
>>>> Of course, that leaves the issue of the library name to be fixed, but
>>>> sufficient unto the day ...
>>>>       
>>> Yeah - I chatted briefly with Magnus about that a while back. I added
>>> a quick hack to Mkvcbuild.pm to allow it to use either 5.10 or 5.8,
>>> but didn't even think about the msys build.
>>>
>>>     
>>
>> Yeah, this is something we need to look at for 8.5. I think it's too
>> late in the cycle to start messing with it for 8.4.
>>   
> 
> I don't see why. Perl 5.10 is out there and people will want to use it.
> I have a simple fix for this in GNUMakefile (see below) , and putting
> something similar in the MSVC build stuff will be simple too. If we
> don't want to support Perl 5.10 why was the item on the open issues list
> at all (and why did I just spend hours finding a solution to the hard
> part)?

I mostly meant a general make-it-version-independent fix. The fix that's
in the MSVC build system now is really just a hack that only supports
5.8 and 5.10, not any other versions.

But sure, if it's that easy, go for it :-)


> I have cleaned up the patch from yesterday slightly, too. I'm wondering
> how far back we should backpatch all this. This API was actually
> documented in Perl (just) before 7.4 was released, so in theory the API
> adjustment should go all the way back. However, in practice it hasn't
> been a problem until now, and we aren't supporting Windows releases
> before 8.2, so I think 8.2 is probably the right spot.

IIRC, all the complaints we've seen about it is from people using the
binary installer (which would be the vast majority of the Windows
users). And we're not going to switch to 5.10 in any of the backbranches
there, ever. Based on that argument, backpatching doesn't need to be
done at all.

For the sake of those who do build from source, going back to 8.2 seems
reasonable. There's certainly no point in going past it - we have
stopped backpatching much more important fixes there a long time ago.


-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Self: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/