Re: Python modules for every supported version
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
There is an implicit assumption here that python modules will actually work
for all versions of Python. This is clearly not the case; some will use
features only available in (some newer version X.y). Furthermore, at least a
few (distutils and difflib are notable) are available only for the versions in
which they would not normally be available anyway. (They were added to the
stdlib later, iirc.) It would be undesirable to package them for later
versions and do extra work pulling those parts out of the stdlib, and probably
impossible to package them for earlier versions since they would not work.
The report is certainly an interesting comparison though.
C
Seo Sanghyeon wrote:
| Fabio Tranchitella wrote:
|
|>>I'm interested in adopting python-gd (my package is available on
|>>http://www.kobold.it/python-gd). Actually there is only a whishlist
|>>bug for this package (#223580) which ask for a versioned packaging
|>>for the module. Actually it is available only for python2.3, but
|>>there are no problems to compile and package it for other version
|>>(python2.1 and python2.2) so I did.
|
|
| Josselin Mouette wrote:
|
|>I think this would be wrong. This would clutter the archive with loads
|>of cruft. For modules that are not widely used, almost no one will want
|>a package for an older python version, thus only the default current
|>version should be supported. This makes the python transitions easier,
|>too.
|
|
| I agree, so I am against Fabio's suggestion to make all Python module
| packages to support all Python versions. But the fact python-gd have a
| wishlist bug filed specifically asking for other versions of Python
| means that it is widely used enough...?
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3-nr1 (Windows XP)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFAzxIc3A5SrXAiHQcRAnKaAJ419EjA5PKR7klR4Kp2Xu/k2o8cLQCgkC0A
KMJ/eXdAyq6HWls6FJPmzqY=
=ij4O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: