What's the oldest MS VC version Parrot should built with?

[Vadim Konovalov]

在 Friday 19 December 2008 17:06:25，Geoffrey Broadwell 写道：
> On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 20:10 +0000, Vadim Konovalov wrote:
> > Again, Jan's explanation:
> > http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/perl5-porters/2006-03/msg00725.h
> >tml
> >
> > With different CRT you'll get unneeded bloat, and new CRT could not yet
> > be installed on target OS, so in newer VC you need to provide user with
> > instructions how to install CRT for VC9.
> >
> > WinXP+SP3 do have lates VC runtime, while pure WinXP could not!
>
> It's not uncommon for applications to require certain minimum Windows
> Service Packs.  I don't think it's unreasonable for Parrot to do so as
> well, especially since:
>
> 1.  It would allow us to use a current compiler, while still not
> bloating our install.
>
> 2.  Anyone not running a current SP is probably running an insecure
> system.  I consider it a net win for the world to strongly encourage
> users to at least *minimally* secure their systems.

installing SP3 does not mean securing the system.
I prefer other ways on securing.


Or you actually believe all the MS advertising?
Whenever I see the message "you turned off automatic updates. your computer 
might be at risk" I understand that this is rather declaring that they are 
about security, rather than actual security!

Some thing MS do quite good (MSVC, MS-Office are examples) but not security 
solutions.


>
> 3.  There may be a few users who cannot use a patched up version of
> Windows for whatever reason, usually because they must support
> production software that cannot handle the upgrade.  Given that Parrot
> 1.0 is explicitly *NOT* for production use, I don't believe there's much
> likelihood of a large intersection between systems running Parrot 1.0
> and systems that cannot run current OS patches.
>
> > the point I've raised is not choosing between GCC(mingv) and VC9, but
> > rather why it could be desireable to not drop VC6 support, provided that
> > there will be VC9 support anyway.
>
> How about this:
>
> *PROVIDED SOMEONE ACTS AS MAINTAINER*, we support VC6 for users to
> manually build with, but it's not the compiler we use for default
> prebuilt Windows binaries.  For these, we can use VC9, and require Vista
> or WinXP SP3. [1]
>
> Is that an acceptable compromise?

I thought there is already such a compromise accepted.

Except requiring WinXP-SP3 or Vista is catastrophic from marketing POV.
At least, providing an explanation on how to install certain missing CRT  is 
much better solution.

I very much doubt that you will ever see WinXP-SP3 requirement for ruby, 
python, tcl, etc.

Best regards,
Vadim.