Kyle Stanley <aeros...@gmail.com> added the comment:
> This was reported by a partner that was working porting our code to Android > but might be fixed current Android API levels. I cannot test this myself. Thanks, it's helpful to be aware of potential incompatibilities either way. I don't think we directly support or test Android, based on https://buildbot.python.org/all/#/builders. There's some degree of _indirect_ support because Android kernels are based on Linux LTS kernels, but there are substantial differences. > Fully agree, part of the reason why I was suggesting getting rid of > reuse_address and reuse_port completely on this higher level API. > But I'm happy with Antoine's proposal which effectively kills the > reuse_address parameter, just suggesting we also kill reuse_port as well. Removing support for the *reuse_address* parameter can be justified with the security issue, but I don't think we have significant justification to also remove *reuse_port* in the same PR. In general, removing a parameter is not something taken lightly because of the backwards compatibility concerns. I think the argument for eventually deprecating *reuse_port* on the basis of it directly mapping to a low-level OS API could be worth further discussion, but that's a topic for an entirely separate issue IMO. If it is approved, it would have to go through the usual deprecation process, likely starting in 3.9 with a DeprecationWarning and a removal no sooner than 3.11. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue37228> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
