From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F11020966 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 13:08:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933214AbdDENFi (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:05:38 -0400 Received: from sub4.mail.dreamhost.com ([69.163.253.135]:41207 "EHLO homiemail-a95.g.dreamhost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933071AbdDENEf (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:04:35 -0400 Received: from homiemail-a95.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a95.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC797600050C; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:04:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=jupiterrise.com; h=from :subject:to:references:cc:message-id:date:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= jupiterrise.com; bh=0qE7SzXuCHWco/zAyTRH1lJBS0o=; b=hobzAeKtxjtn KqBP23GCSvyaPxQ48wSAFqreua2DutwymncD+PY3vYVbaQavtw78Ckft40INTBAE Bvic3jOKo30cVx6+YIB4LqNWZhA3LOodAW3ixsxS7ysmTAxJfVfOYvZxyM0+BRvu r/vR5G8vM0ihn+UqawcqAoXhKsHPRKw= Received: from merlin.tgcnet.jupiterrise.com (2-106-159-182-static.dk.customer.tdc.net [2.106.159.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: tgc99@jupiterrise.com) by homiemail-a95.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 48B686000504; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 06:04:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.18.98.35] (nat.statsbiblioteket.dk [130.225.26.33]) by merlin.tgcnet.jupiterrise.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 98FB4612DA; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 15:04:32 +0200 (CEST) From: "Tom G. Christensen" Subject: Re: [RFC] dropping support for ancient versions of curl To: =?UTF-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsCBCamFybWFzb24=?= References: <20170404025438.bgxz5sfmrawqswcj@sigill.intra.peff.net> Cc: Jeff King , Git Mailing List , Jonathan Nieder , Todd Zullinger Message-ID: <4e30ae33-d508-9bb8-74e6-8204967c4538@jupiterrise.com> Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 15:04:32 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 05/04/17 12:51, =C3=86var Arnfj=C3=B6r=C3=B0 Bjarmason wrote: > On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Tom G. Christensen wrote: > Whoah. So my assumption in > > that nobody was compiling this & thus not reporting failures was > false. Rather there's an entire community & distribution mechanism > around patching git for older EL versions, but the patches aren't > making it upstream. > The community as I know it consists of me and EPEL5 (now dead and archive= d). The packages that I build are probably only used by me and the company I=20 work for as they are not exactly easy to find via search engines. EPEL5 supported git 1.8.3.2 but the Fedora git specfile still contains=20 all the infrastructure though I cannot know if it actually got used with=20 anything later than 1.8.3.2. I don't know of anyone that actually *needs* to use the latest git on=20 RHEL < 5, myself included. I kept the support for RHEL < 5 because I=20 could and it was good fun to tinker with. Also I should say that testresults are good, no problems there except a=20 few small nits as revealed in the specfile: %if %{?el4:1}0 # These tests fail with subversion 1.1.4 export GIT_SKIP_TESTS=3D"t9140.4" %ifarch x86_64 # These tests fail with subversion 1.1.4 but only on x86_64 export GIT_SKIP_TESTS=3D"$GIT_SKIP_TESTS t9106.7 t9106.8 t9106.9 t9106.10= =20 t9137.4 t9164.5 t9164.6 t9164.7 t9164.8" %endif %endif %if %{?el3:1}%{?el4:1}0 # not ok 6 - url high-bit escapes export GIT_SKIP_TESTS=3D"$GIT_SKIP_TESTS t0110.6" # not ok 32 - ref name 'heads/foo' is invalid export GIT_SKIP_TESTS=3D"$GIT_SKIP_TESTS t1402.32" %endif %if %{?el3:1}0 # t7800 failed 17 among 56 test(s) export GIT_SKIP_TESTS=3D"$GIT_SKIP_TESTS t7800" %endif It's been a little while since I did a build without those exclusions=20 but I doubt much has changed. > $ grep -h -e ^Subject -e ^Date *patch > Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:34:11 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH 1/7] Make NO_PERL_MAKEMAKER behave more like > Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 11:02:02 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH 2/7] Install man pages when NO_PERL_MAKEMAKER is used > Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 13:42:50 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH 3/7] Allow svnrdump_sim.py to be used with Python 2.2 > Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 09:31:56 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH 4/7] Handle missing HTTP_CONNECTCODE in curl < 7.10.7 > Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 10:32:51 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH 5/7] Add support for gnupg < 1.4 > Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 18:15:13 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH 6/7] Handle missing CURLINFO_SSL_DATA_{IN,OUT} > Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 18:26:54 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH 7/7] Do not use curl_easy_strerror with curl < 7.12.0 All original work done by me. > Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 21:24:44 -0500 > Subject: [PATCH] Restore vc-git.el for basic compatibility on EL-5 > Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:03:36 -0400 > Subject: [PATCH] git-cvsimport: Ignore cvsps-2.2b1 Branches: output > These two I can't claim credit for. They are lifted verbatim from=20 Fedora/EPEL and as the headers reveal they were created by Todd Zullinger= . I won't submit them for inclusion since I am not familiar with nor a=20 user of the parts they touch. >> Patches can be found in the src.rpm, though I can also post them here = as >> patch series, they cover more than just curl. >> >> I don't use the el3 and el4 versions much any more and el5 use will al= so >> drop of now as I'm busy converting machines from el5 to el7. > > It would be great to have them on-list, as far as I can tell they were > never submitted? Is there some time/administrative reason for why > you're not submitting them? Well I recently took the time to clean them up with the intention of=20 maybe finally submitting them but I never got that far. The first one in the series I actually submitted many years ago but it=20 was ultimately rejected. I've submitted a few patches over the years to support older RHEL=20 releases and some of them ended up being included. > Some of these are many years old, it would > be great to have them on-list for wider review & included so vanilla > git works on these platforms. > I just posted them now. The series was made against the v2.12.2 tag. -tgc