For the upcoming release, we're considering dropping support for that
interpreter version. If you're still using 5.6.x, or know of a
(relatively recent) distro that does, please reply to highlight
this
--j.
On 25-Jun-2009, at 02:44, Justin Mason wrote:
For the upcoming release, we're considering dropping support for that
interpreter version. If you're still using 5.6.x, or know of a
(relatively recent) distro that does, please reply to highlight
this
If moving away from 5.6 makes SA better
Justin Mason schrieb:
For the upcoming release, we're considering dropping support for that
interpreter version. If you're still using 5.6.x, or know of a
(relatively recent) distro that does, please reply to highlight
this
--j.
Don't know if it's still relevant: Solaris 8
# uname
Jan P. Kessler schrieb:
Justin Mason schrieb:
For the upcoming release, we're considering dropping support for that
interpreter version. If you're still using 5.6.x, or know of a
(relatively recent) distro that does, please reply to highlight
this
--j.
Don't know if
On 25-Jun-2009, at 04:15, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
Don't know if it's still relevant: Solaris 8
# uname -a
SunOS mailhub 5.8 Generic_108528-09 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-250
# perl -v
This is perl, version 5.005_03 built for sun4-solaris
5.00? snigger
;)
--
Instant karma's going to get you!
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:21:25PM +0200, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
Jan P. Kessler schrieb:
Justin Mason schrieb:
For the upcoming release, we're considering dropping support for that
interpreter version. If you're still using 5.6.x, or know of a
(relatively recent) distro that does,
Henrik K schrieb:
sorry, just missed the relatively recent statement ;-)
When the system gets old enough that it's not supported officially and you
are forced to manually CPAN fresh modules (and possibly wreak havoc on the
OS), there is no reason not to compile your own perl (or upgrade
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:15, Jan P. Kesslersal...@jpkessler.info wrote:
Justin Mason schrieb:
For the upcoming release, we're considering dropping support for that
interpreter version. If you're still using 5.6.x, or know of a
(relatively recent) distro that does, please reply to highlight
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 13:20 +0200, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
Henrik K schrieb:
SA is trying to be too supportive for the money it receives. ;-) If you ask
me, just ditch this and all other old baggage for 3.3. If you are not happy,
you are free to keep running 3.2. Some people are even still
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 02:36:15PM +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 13:20 +0200, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
Henrik K schrieb:
SA is trying to be too supportive for the money it receives. ;-) If you
ask
me, just ditch this and all other old baggage for 3.3. If you
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 13:20 +0200, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
Henrik K schrieb:
SA is trying to be too supportive for the money it receives. ;-) If you ask
me, just ditch this and all other old baggage for 3.3. If you are not happy,
you are free to keep running 3.2.
On Thu, June 25, 2009 14:56, Henrik K wrote:
I'm just not sure why ask in the first place. Perl 5.6.1 is old. Anyone
using such system most likely has no support. Anyone using such perl most
likely shouldn't be allowed to use it. You could be already fixing the
code and not waiting. ;)
old
Henrik K wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 02:36:15PM +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 13:20 +0200, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
Henrik K schrieb:
SA is trying to be too supportive for the money it receives. ;-)
If you ask me, just ditch this and all other old baggage for
2009/6/25 Ned Slider n...@unixmail.co.uk:
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 13:20 +0200, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
Henrik K schrieb:
SA is trying to be too supportive for the money it receives. ;-) If you
ask
me, just ditch this and all other old baggage for 3.3. If you are not
John Rudd wrote:
I've seen LOTS of so-focused-on-stability if it ain't broke, don't
upgrade it type shops in the Solaris arena ...
You'll likely find that in any production environment that is concerned
about uptime. The less change, the more uptime.
/Per Jessen, Zürich
On 25-Jun-2009, at 04:15, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
Don't know if it's still relevant: Solaris 8
# uname -a
SunOS mailhub 5.8 Generic_108528-09 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-250
# perl -v
This is perl, version 5.005_03 built for sun4-solaris
On 25.06.09 04:37, LuKreme wrote:
5.00? snigger
5.005
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 07:11, Per Jessenp...@computer.org wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
I've seen LOTS of so-focused-on-stability if it ain't broke, don't
upgrade it type shops in the Solaris arena ...
You'll likely find that in any production environment that is concerned
about uptime. The
My oldest server has 5.8, and it's a really out of date box.
My newest out-of-date box has 5.8.8-36 (opensuse 10.2).
Antispam and email is a fast changing technology (compared to other server
things like file and print and http), so I see no reason why people should try
to adapt an old system
Per Jessen wrote:
John Rudd wrote:
I've seen LOTS of so-focused-on-stability if it ain't broke, don't
upgrade it type shops in the Solaris arena ...
You'll likely find that in any production environment that is concerned
about uptime. The less change, the more uptime.
As far
On 25-Jun-2009, at 05:20, Jan P. Kessler wrote:
Henrik K schrieb:
SA is trying to be too supportive for the money it receives. ;-) If
you ask
me, just ditch this and all other old baggage for 3.3. If you are
not happy,
you are free to keep running 3.2. Some people are even still using
3.1.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:09, Chris Hoogendykhoogen...@bio.umass.edu wrote:
Gone are the days when you totally avoided upgrades because of the time,
hassle and risk involved.
Time and hassle, maybe. Risk, no. Risk is not a binary, it's a
balancing act. Live updates don't remove risk, they
On 6/25/2009 11:27 PM, John Rudd wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:09, Chris Hoogendykhoogen...@bio.umass.edu wrote:
Gone are the days when you totally avoided upgrades because of the time,
hassle and risk involved.
Time and hassle, maybe. Risk, no. Risk is not a binary, it's a
balancing
Well, the point is that if it works, don't break it.
Yes, you can totally avoid upgrades, depending on your environment.
Sometimes you have no choice and continue to run old versions of
software or firmware or ...
Get over it. :)
If you want to continue debating system administration issues,
Yet Another Ninja wrote:
On 6/25/2009 11:27 PM, John Rudd wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:09, Chris
Hoogendykhoogen...@bio.umass.edu wrote:
Gone are the days when you totally avoided upgrades because of the
time,
hassle and risk involved.
Time and hassle, maybe. Risk, no. Risk is not
24 matches
Mail list logo
