On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
Is compatibility with perl 5.005 still desirable? We still have one mail
server with RH 6.2 running qpsmtpd 0.26, and I'm unsure whether I should
make qpsmtpd perl-5.005-compatible (currently it uses our in a couple
of places and maybe a few other
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm all for dropping support of 5.5. Move up to 5.8.
For a pure Perl module (I don't even think any of our dependencies
require XS), if we can maintain compatibility without too much trouble,
I think we should. On the other hand
require 5.006001;
seems a
On 19 Jul 2005, at 09:01, John Peacock wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm all for dropping support of 5.5. Move up to 5.8.
For a pure Perl module (I don't even think any of our dependencies
require XS), if we can maintain compatibility without too much
trouble, I think we should.
There
Matt Sergeant wrote:
What I don't want to do is have us all have to maintain an old 5.6
install just to test it there before every release.
Since we have allows our() to creep in, apparently no one was testing
5.005 anyways. ;-)
Since I plan on keeping version.pm compatible back as far as I
I'm currently running qpsmtpd under 5.6.1, but I haven't updated qpsmtpd
in several weeks. I'd favor maintaining 5.6 compatibility, since there
are a lot of machines out there that came with 5.6 and haven't had their
perls upgraded. Not sure what the can't-do-without 5.8-isms are, though.
Currently I think the only thing that uses the capabilities notes
field is the new tls plugin. My suggestion is to make this not a notes
field any more, but an integral part of the $transaction object.
The reason being that currently we have a horrible hoop jump with it
being in notes. Things
On Jul 19, 2005, at 14:19, Matt Sergeant wrote:
Any objections?
Go for it.
- ask
