On Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 03:23:01PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > All three python versions may be compatible at the python language level, i.e a > script will work under all three. Uh, that fact that some set of scripts MAY work under 2, 3, or more different python implementations does not counter the assertion of backwards incompatibility in any way. It is the *existence* of a legal Python 1.5 script that is illegal in, say, Python 2.1, that is demonstrative of backwards incompatibility. Since you take this incompatibility as a given later, maybe I am failing to understand the point of your remark. > The same is true with some python script code. Python 1.5.2 will around for > some time because there are small (real small) places where it fails under > newer versions. > > Compound this with the fact that until recently python 2.x was not GPL > compatible for any GPL code was forced to remain at 1.5.2. FYI, Python 2.0.1 was released under a GPL-compatible license. <http://www.python.org/2.0.1/> > My guess is we will have a 1.5 and a 2.x package for some time and for perios > of time more than these two. I think, as proposed, Debian needs to get rid of Python 2.0.x as soon as possible. I fully support the existing the proposal to maintain python1.5 and python 2.[1-9].* for woody. The only backwards-incompatible change between Python 2.0 and 2.1 *that I know of* is that relational comparisons between complex types are more restricted (in Python 2.1, only equality tests, not magnitude tests are alllowed). Since this is a mathematically ambiguous concept anyway, this doesn't seem a big deal to me. -- G. Branden Robinson | The software said it required Debian GNU/Linux | Windows 3.1 or better, so I branden@debian.org | installed Linux. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgp4hm5mkKnyH.pgp
Description: PGP signature