On 16/10/2007, jerry gay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/16/07, Paul Cochrane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 15/10/2007, Bernhard Schmalhofer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Paul Cochrane via RT schrieb: > > > > On Fri Nov 17 14:17:18 2006, particle wrote: > > > > > > > >> ~ all but one test have been adapted for and moved to t/codingstd/ > > > >> ~ remaining test is for not-yet-approved codingstd item > > > >> > > > > > > > > The remaining test complains about more than one '.' in a filename and > > > > filenames which don't conform to the 8.3 format. > > > I have talked to some VMS people at YAPC::EU 2007. > > > For them the "more than one '.'" issue was a real problem, that > > > they had to work around before even creating a Makefile. > > > > Attached is a test for multiple dot filenames. We have several such > > files in the source[1], so I don't know how useful such a test is, and > > whether or not it is worth changing the files around. I could handle > > having a restriction on the number of dots in filenames but I don't > > think we would be able to handle an 8.3 filename format restriction. > > Anyway, a decision would be good about this, then I can clean up and > > close a couple of annoying tickets. > > > what we need to do more generally is verify that parrot is buildable > and installable on our target operating systems. citing the PDD01 > draft: > > =head2 Target Platforms > > The ultimate goal of Parrot is portability to more-or-less the same > platforms as Perl 5, including AIX, BeOS, BSD/OS, Cygwin, Darwin, > Debian, DG/UX, DragonFlyBSD, Embedix, EPOC, FreeBSD, Gentoo, HP-UX, > IRIX, Linux, Mac OS (Classic), Mac OS X, Mandriva, Minix, MS-DOS, > NetBSD, NetWare, NonStop-UX, OpenBSD, OS/2, Plan 9, Red Hat, RISC OS, > Slackware, Solaris, SuSE, Syllable, Symbian, TiVo (Linux), Tru64, > Ubuntu, VMS, VOS, WinCE, Windows 95/98/Me/NT/2000/XP/Vista, and z/OS. > > Recognizing the fact that ports depend on volunteer labor, the minimum > requirements for the 1.0 launch of Parrot are portability to major > versions of Linux, BSD, Mac OS X, and Windows released within 2 years > prior to the 1.0 release. As we approach the 1.0 release we will > actively seek porters for as many other platforms as possible. > > i'd be quite satisfied with a test that verifies that the minimum > filename requirements are met for the list of currently targeted > operating systems, accompanied by a note in the test (and either a > TODO ticket or an item in the porters guide) that this test must be > modified and satisfied to address the requirements of all supported > platforms.
Ok, the currently targeted platforms (as given in PLATFORMS) are: - Darwin - Linux (various flavours) - OpenBSD - FreeBSD (not actually mentioned, but I've seen mention of it working recently) - Solaris (versions 8--10) - OpenSolaris (basically Solaris10) - Tru64 (I don't know anyone with access to such a machine atm) - Win32 (XP, 2000; cygwin; mingw) (what have I forgotten here?) The minimum requirements for filenames should be: - Any character in the set: a-zA-Z0-9,.-_ - Should we make a rule about multiple dots? - Should there be a maximum length? 1024 chars? 100 chars? 12 chars? I'm sure to have missed something here. I'm just trying to get a feel for what our boundaries are so that they can be codified into a test. Paul
