Gentoo Archives: gentoo-python

From: "Johan Bergström" <bugs@××××××××××.nu>
To: Sjujskij Nikolaj <sterkrig@×××××××.com>
Cc: gentoo-python@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-python] On Python 2.5
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 07:59:39
Message-Id: 9C55C6F8DD2A40AF816F3F5D746FA58F@bergstroem.nu
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-python] On Python 2.5 by Sjujskij Nikolaj
On Monday, 20 February 2012 at 6:44 PM, Sjujskij Nikolaj wrote:
> Den 2012-02-20 09:04:45 skrev Johan Bergström <bugs@××××××××××.nu (mailto:bugs@××××××××××.nu)>: > > > Good day all, > > with Python 2.4 being removed and all (anyone seen complaints about > > this, btw?), > > I'd like to discuss the removal of Python 2.5. > > > > Although 2.5 was one of those versions that started to be useful, I > > really see no > > reason to just keep it around "just because". > > > > Did a quick glance in the tree and couldn't find a package that only > > depended > > on python:2.5 specifically. Please correct me if I'm wrong. > > > > The question is therefore: why keep python 2.5 in tree? > > There're quite a few people developing for Python 2.5 (for other target > platforms) using Gentoo. Just as I know one guy who programs for RedHat > (with Python 2.4) using Gentoo ~amd64. > Though I'm not developer, I hold that there's no call to remove old Python > versions from tree: declare them unsupported, or mask, but don't remove > until it's too burdensome.
This is one of the arguments also used for 2.4 (as you also state), which now is gone. I would rather put similar ebuilds in a python overlay. The way I see it, we have these "few people developing" vs us python dev's, testing and building packages on a daily basis. 2.4 was starting to be a real burden (I've seen 30+ package silently disregard 2.4) in 2011, and we'll most likely see the same thing happen for 2.5. It might not be time to punt it yet, but it doesn't hurt to discuss arguments until time's due. Cheers, Johan

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-python] On Python 2.5 Nikolaj Sjujskij <sterkrig@×××××××.com>