On 3. 7. 25 01:05, Greg Stein wrote:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 9:54 AM Nathan Hartman<hartman.nat...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 6:41 AM Branko Čibej<br...@apache.org> wrote:
On 1. 7. 25 10:03,dsahlb...@apache.org wrote:
Author: dsahlberg
Date: Tue Jul 1 08:03:29 2025
New Revision: 1926891
URL:http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1926891&view=rev
Log:
It seems to be consensus on dev@ that we should name the next release
1.5, so
the CMake build system's first apperance will be in 1.5.
* README
CMake is included as of 1.5.
Modified:
serf/trunk/README
Modified: serf/trunk/README
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/serf/trunk/README?rev=1926891&r1=1926890&r2=1926891&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- serf/trunk/README (original)
+++ serf/trunk/README Tue Jul 1 08:03:29 2025
@@ -23,14 +23,25 @@ the same features.
1.1.1 SCons build system
-You must use at least SCons version 2.3. If it is not installed
+You must use at least SCons version 2.3.5. If it is not installed
In that case, you must update SConstruct, too.
Just a reminder, again -- I would not recommend to use Scons 2.3.x or
3.x these days because it has a hard dependency on Python 2. We have a
builder that proves it works, but it goes out of its way to install
Python as well as SCons.
Maybe its time we stopped pretending this will work indefinitely. It
works in 1.3.x, maybe leave the requirement there for 1.5 but bump to
SCons 4 on trunk. (Or just bump SCons, depending on what we decide wrt
the build system).
IMHO supporting Python 2 can only get more difficult with time.
Eventually it may become hard to build or install Python 2 on modern
systems. The added friction will be a disincentive for devs to invest
time in it. So, yes, unless Someone (tm) steps forward to maintain
that, it makes sense to phase out support for Python 2. Leaving it for
1.5 and moving forward on trunk seems reasonable to me.
Seems very appropriate to say "Py2 was EOL'd a decade ago. If you want
that, then use serf 1.3 ... 1.5 *builds* require py3".
Note that we're talking about packaging/building. Not necessarily the
runtime environment. I could not explain why our build system requires py2,
for any modern packager.
It doesn't require it. It supports it. Every single bit of python we
have now works equally well with 3.14.0-beta3 and 2.7. Currently, that's
not a burden. We have more trouble dealing with fairly recent versions
of SCons that have a broken CheckFunction() :( Well, not so recent, but
only recently fixed, TBH.
I'm not advocating for clinging to staying compatible with Python2, just
being pedantic.
-- Brane
