I added a comment to the proposal discussion page to indicate I agree it's better to just go with full parallel stacks and not worry about making use of the stable ABI at this point.
I'm not familiar enough with the EPEL build infrastructure to have a strong opinion On 01/13/2015 09:47 PM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: > Guido van Rossum has, several times now, expressed his aversion to > having "3.10". It is most likely that there will be "3.9" and then > "4.0", even if that doesn't present any huge change (like 2.6->3.0 did). Slavek is correct that the current plan is for Python to simply go 3.9 -> 4.0 rather than continuing with the 3.x series indefinitely. The degree of change is expected to be comparable to any other X.Y -> X.Y+1 release, rather than being comparable to the 2.x -> 3.x situation. Instead, the major version bump will largely just indicate whether other code and materials have been suitably modernised to use 4.x idioms, rather than still remaining compatible with earlier, by then legacy, 3.x versions. Tangentially related, I'm actually somewhat morbidly curious as to what's going to break when 2.7.10 is published later this year :) > [No, no, south is *obviously wrong*; moreover, it'll be metal, not wood...] [TBH, I've always strongly favoured the use of besser bricks [1] for sheds.] Regards, Nick. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_masonry_unit -- Nick Coghlan Red Hat Hosted & Shared Services Software Engineering & Development, Brisbane HSS Provisioning Architect _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel