| 1 |
On Monday, 20 February 2012 at 6:44 PM, Sjujskij Nikolaj wrote: |
| 2 |
> Den 2012-02-20 09:04:45 skrev Johan Bergström <bugs@××××××××××.nu (mailto:bugs@××××××××××.nu)>: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > Good day all, |
| 5 |
> > with Python 2.4 being removed and all (anyone seen complaints about |
| 6 |
> > this, btw?), |
| 7 |
> > I'd like to discuss the removal of Python 2.5. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Although 2.5 was one of those versions that started to be useful, I |
| 10 |
> > really see no |
| 11 |
> > reason to just keep it around "just because". |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > Did a quick glance in the tree and couldn't find a package that only |
| 14 |
> > depended |
| 15 |
> > on python:2.5 specifically. Please correct me if I'm wrong. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > The question is therefore: why keep python 2.5 in tree? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> There're quite a few people developing for Python 2.5 (for other target |
| 20 |
> platforms) using Gentoo. Just as I know one guy who programs for RedHat |
| 21 |
> (with Python 2.4) using Gentoo ~amd64. |
| 22 |
> Though I'm not developer, I hold that there's no call to remove old Python |
| 23 |
> versions from tree: declare them unsupported, or mask, but don't remove |
| 24 |
> until it's too burdensome. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
This is one of the arguments also used for 2.4 (as you also state), which |
| 27 |
now is gone. I would rather put similar ebuilds in a python overlay. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
The way I see it, we have these "few people developing" vs us python |
| 30 |
dev's, testing and building packages on a daily basis. 2.4 was starting |
| 31 |
to be a real burden (I've seen 30+ package silently disregard 2.4) in |
| 32 |
2011, and we'll most likely see the same thing happen for 2.5. |
| 33 |
It might not be time to punt it yet, but it doesn't hurt to discuss |
| 34 |
arguments until time's due. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Cheers, |
| 37 |
Johan |
Archives