Sign in Join
Wiki copytemporary

2.4.0 Release preparation: what changed

Revision 1 to 2. Removed lines have a minus sign; added lines have a plus sign.

OldNewLine
1-Long term todo's for 2.4.0 release
1+Long term todo's for 2.4.0 release
22
3-Remove legacy interfaces and compatibility
3+Remove legacy interfaces and compatibility
44
5-- disable oldlinux building (done)
6-- move 1.0.x style routines (with old errorhandling) in sockets to a separate unit (\<os\>sock was proposed for the OS interface, "sockets" for a generic wrapper over the OS-interface common for all platforms, and "passock" for the Pascal-style boolean-wrappers and the sock2text)
5+ * disable oldlinux building (done)
6+ * move 1.0.x style routines (with old errorhandling) in sockets to a separate unit (<os>sock was proposed for the OS interface, "sockets" for a generic wrapper over the OS-interface common for all platforms, and "passock" for the Pascal-style boolean-wrappers and the sock2text)
77
8-- remove ppc386.cfg support. <http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=11317> (done)
8+ * remove ppc386.cfg support. <http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=11317> (done)
99
10-- Decide what to do with unit libc. Should probably get some deprecated here and there to "discourage" use. See also <http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=13373> This is not about preparing to remove unit libc (for which I (Marco) don't have a schedule) , it is just to discourage new use of it.
10+ * Decide what to do with unit libc. Should probably get some deprecated here and there to "discourage" use. See also <http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=13373> This is not about preparing to remove unit libc (for which I (Marco) don't have a schedule) , it is just to discourage new use of it.
1111
1212## removing old socket routines
1313
14-*since nobody did anything about this at all since 2.2.0 was released, is it really a good idea to start completely throwing that stuff around now right before the next release? -- Jonas*
14+_since nobody did anything about this at all since 2.2.0 was released, is it really a good idea to start completely throwing that stuff around now right before the next release? -- Jonas_
1515
16-''The agreement then was afaik to kill it off just before 2.4.0, to avoid having long ifdef's in user code between 2.2 and 2.3.1 (the oldlinux problem we had with 1.0 and 1.9.x).
16+_The agreement then was afaik to kill it off just before 2.4.0, to avoid having long ifdef's in user code between 2.2 and 2.3.1 (the oldlinux problem we had with 1.0 and 1.9.x)._
1717
18-But you are right that it might be too late for the passock part. So I suggest to keep that part for another round, since they are flagged deprecated anyway, and only remove the aliases that have 1:1 fp* equivalents since 1.9.x days. Moreover, the upcoming release is a beta. Its interface should be correct, but minor bugs can be fixed in the real release, if their potential problem scope is as little as this one. -- Marco''
18+But you are right that it might be too late for the passock part. So I suggest to keep that part for another round, since they are flagged deprecated anyway, and only remove the aliases that have 1:1 fp* equivalents since 1.9.x days. Moreover, the upcoming release is a beta. Its interface should be correct, but minor bugs can be fixed in the real release, if their potential problem scope is as little as this one. \-- Marco __
1919
2020---
21-*From the Free Pascal wiki, page "2.4.0 Release preparation", as it stood on 2012-06-10 after a change by Chronos, out of the wiki's dump of 2024-05-26. Copyright stays with the author who wrote it, according to the old wiki's [[Licensing]] page. If you have concerns about this material, [message the admin](/wiki-contact).*
22-Category: FPC release
21+*From the Free Pascal wiki, page "2.4.0 Release preparation", as the Internet Archive kept it on 2025-01-24. Copyright stays with the author who wrote it, according to the old wiki's [[Licensing]] page. If you have concerns about this material, [message the admin](/wiki-contact).*

Back to history