On Tuesday, 1 May 2012 at 7:01 AM, Kacper Kowalik wrote:
> On 30.04.2012 22:13, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 20:17, Kacper Kowalik <email@example.com (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)> wrote:
> > > 1) how long are we supposed to keep old version of Python in Portage?
> > > 2) how many version should we actively maintained?
> > I'm not sure we need hard rules here. IMO the current approach (i.e.
> > just talking about it and dropping as we decide it makes sense) is
> > just fine. In particular, some version bumps are just harder than
> > others, and adoption of new versions is always different (i.e. for 3.x
> > and 2.x versions is obviously a very different story right now). From
> > the other side (for example, in Mercurial depends), it also depends
> > how big of a boon new features are.
> > So let's just decide on a case-by-case when we deprecate a version? As
> > for 2.5, are we seeing increased incompatibility yet? Any recent
> > examples? I think 2.5 is close to deprecation, but I'm personally not
> > getting the impression it's getting to be a big PITA just yet.
> 10% of packages that restrict Python abi in any way, restrict 2.5 (I've
> grepped for "\(2.\[45\]\|2.5\)") That's the only statistics I could
> think of.
> I'm not aware of any security bugs related to 2.5 branch
I raised the same question a couple of months ago, just to get a discussion going on what we consider "deprecated". Python 2.5 is one of those versions that actually work pretty well, so it will probably be here for a long time. A perhaps better way of looking at this is how many packages that depend explicitly on 2.5 to work and understand why upstream stays there.
For me as a fellow package bumper, I'd say that 2.5 is still good to go.