On 2010/06/17 13:12, Joachim Schipper wrote: > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:04:24PM +0100, Federico G. Schwindt wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:16:09PM +0200, Joachim Schipper wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 05:00:19PM +0100, Federico G. Schwindt wrote: > > > > hi, > > > > > > > > is there any reason to keep 2.5 around and specially as the default? > > > > 2.6 has been stable for some time now and all the ports should work > > > > with > > > > it. itoh, 2.5 is not maintained anymore except for some sporadic > > > > security > > > > updates. > > > > having to check your ports against 2.5 and 2.6 is time consuming (I'm > > > > not > > > > considering 2.4 as should only used for zope), but unfortunately is > > > > required > > > > for a number of reasons. > > > > so i propose to remove 2.5 and apply the diff below. this also > > > > removes > > > > mentions to 2.3 and updates the comments to mention other ports > > > > hardcoding > > > > the python version. > > > > comments? objections? oks? > > > > > > As others have said, moving to 2.6 makes a lot of sense; but if you are > > > e.g. developing software in Python, having 2.5 around is useful for > > > compatibility testing. So ports wouldn't need to be tested against 2.5, > > > but it shouldn't be deleted either. > > > > ugh? if we have 2.5 in the tree, even if it's not the default we should > > be testing with it. like we test 2.6 at the moment even when it's not the > > default. why would that change? > > I was under the impression that 2.6 was tested because OpenBSD wants to > move to that version. Python 2.4 is also in-tree, but ports are not > regularly tested against it, right? 2.5 could get the same status.
2.4 is in particularly for Zope and we have some messy stuff to provide the few libraries that this requires. (see py-ldap). If we move system Python to 2.6 and keep 2.5 in, 2.5 will only be useful for software which does not depend on external libraries. Is that still going to be useful for people?
