Re: Removal of python1.5?
On Dec 10, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Donovan Baarda writes:
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 11:53:24AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 08:00:20PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > > If I don't hear a serious reason to keep python1.5, I plan to file a
> > > > bug report for ftp.debian.org to remove the python1.5 package.
> > >
> > > Eh?
> > >
> > > python1.5's still useful to users, isn't it, especially ones with
> > > important python programs they don't want to port to 2.1 just yet?
> > >
> > > Dropping python1.5 doesn't seem a particularly clever thing to do.
> >
> > I agree. Old versions can also be useful when testing backwards
> > compatability of scripts etc.
>
> hmm, yes, this argument holds for all versions of all packages ...
>
> > Now that the python policy supports multiple versions and a default version,
> > having old versions around doesn't hurt. Why not just leave them there?
> > Removing them buys nothing but a little archive space.
>
> well, but the policy shouldn't be used to rectify a Debian python
> museum.
IMHO keeping Python 1.5 around for woody doesn't hurt anything.
People could still have legacy scripts that need Python 1.5 that
aren't accounted for by Debian packages, for example. Also, the 1.5
packages in potato are incompatible with the current Python packaging;
if someone needs 1.5 on a woody box, and we drop it from woody, they'd
have to build from source and debianize it themselves or install into
/usr/local.
Now, after woody is released, I can't see any good reason to keep 1.5
around for woody+1. But for now let's keep it around. (If you or
Gregor don't want to maintain it, someone else would probably volunteer.)
Chris
--
Chris Lawrence <chris@lordsutch.com> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/
Reply to: