mdounin at mdounin.ru
Fri Jan 25 00:12:42 UTC 2019
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 10:47:48AM -0800, PGNet Dev wrote:
> > Well, this depends on your point of view. If a project which
> > actually developed the library fails to introduce support to the
> > new version of the library - for an external observer this
> > suggests that there is something wrong with the new version.
> FUD 'suggestions' simply aren't needed.
Sure, they aren't. What is wrong with PCRE2 is clear from the
very start: it's a different library with different API. And
supporting PCRE2 is a question of advantages of PCRE2 over PCRE.
> The Exim project didn't develop the pcre2 library ... Philip Hazel did
> (https://www.pcre.org/current/doc/html/pcre2.html#SEC4), as a separate
Philip Hazel developed both Exim and the PCRE library, "originally
written for the Exim MTA". And PCRE2 claims to be a "major
version" of the PCRE library.
> Exim's last (? something newer out there?) rationale for not adopting it
> was simply,
> "The original PCRE support is not broken.
> If it is going to go away, then adding PCRE2 support becomes much more
> important, but I've seen nobody saying that yet."
I've posted this link in my first response in this thread 4 month
ago. The same rationale applies to any project already using
the PCRE library.
More information about the nginx-devel