[antispam-f] Re: ARMv7 compatibility?
- From: Dave Higton <davehigton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: antispam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 22:50:30 +0100
In message <527b0e774aantispam@xxxxxxxxx>
Frank de Bruijn <antispam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In article <f92bd37a52.martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Martin Bazley <martin.bazley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Good - that clears that up then. Would you be willing to have an "ARMv7
> > OK" sprite (meaning "OK and supported") next to AntiSpam in the table
> > in the future?
>
> OK, changed that. Also changed the URL to point to the page were the
> current version can be found.
>
> I don't know about the 'RISC OS ROM Date' (don't have anything running
> on ARMv7 here), so I left that at 2010-06-25. Maybe Dave can enter a
> more recent date there?
I think that to put a 'RISC OS ROM Date' on each application is
less than helpful nowadays. When the OMAP port was new, lots
of problems were being discovered and fixed, so the date really
was meaningful and important. Now the port has achieved stability,
it's no longer the case.
I wanted to add 'RO 5.16 onwards' in the notes column, but was
thwarted by the requirement for Javascript. (When was the need
for Javascript added? I used to edit that page from Netsurf a
year or two ago!)
Ultimately, I take it that a ROM date means that any ROM of
that date /or/ /later/ will be OK, so I'm not going to change
the ROM date.
> I must admit I'm a bit miffed to find this nearly nine year old version
> mentioned in a list I have never even looked at before (I knew it
> existed but that was it). What makes someone refer to a totally outdated
> version of software that is actively maintained? Weird.
Now that AntiSpam's maintainer is aware of the wiki, perhaps he
will keep AntiSpam's entry up to date :-)
I have no idea who added AntiSpam to the list. I stuck with an
old version for years - but even that was version 1.23.
Dave
Other related posts:
