Re: move to Python 2.x?
> python2.2 seems to have > some problem on mips, so is also not included. 2.2 was still in beta last week, so I'm not terribly surprised. Bill
Re: move to Python 2.x?
> MJ, can you please provide a URL for that file, so we could check on > the reason? But my point was that Python 2.x for Debian is available. http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/update_excuses.html It's within a few clicks of the front page (->Release Info->testing more detailed explanations->update-excuses or similar). python2.2 seems to have some problem on mips, so is also not included. It would appear that python2.0 has made it into testing at last, though, which is a good sign. MJR
Re: move to Python 2.x?
> > There is an "excuses" or "reasons" file or similar which you can check to > > find out. > MJ, can you please provide a URL for that file, so we could check on > the reason? I'll look it up and get back to you. In theory, it should be readily available on the Debian site... in practice, as the "testing" branch is a relatively new development, it might not be. > But my point was that Python 2.x for Debian is available. Depends how you define "available". There exists a debian package in the bleeding-edge development branch, but you can't just install it on a system running the current debian release. I don't think that's available to most users. As to the "I compile things from source" people: well, that's fine and I used to do that myself, as an ex-slackware user, but I now value my system's integrity, so even if I compile it myself, it gets made into a package before it gets allowed into /usr. MJR
Re: move to Python 2.x?
> Personally, I compile those critical system things myself from > source, not packages. That includes perl, apache, python, gcc, yadda yadda. Yeah, me too. > Nothing we have in there really is such > a new whizbang feature as to require the 2.x series (yet). We should > continue to support a "legacy mode" if 1.x is found, and if 2.x is found, > use the newer features, even if it's for 3-4 months, until we're sure that > 2.x of some version is in the stock distros. Well, let's see if that's possible. Could well be. I'd like to use the XML support and Unicode support in 2.x -- not sure how to work around that in 1.x without re-implementing it. Bill
Re: move to Python 2.x?
> 2.0 is available in debian-unstable, but for some reason isn't in > debian-testing. 2.0 seems to be the default for SuSe. I'm not sure how > to figure out what the default is for RH 7.x. The Redhat 7.2 that I've been running for about a month has 1.5.2 by default, but python 2.0.1 was also installed. We should have a python "grace" period, like Mike suggested. Nothing we have in there really is such a new whizbang feature as to require the 2.x series (yet). We should continue to support a "legacy mode" if 1.x is found, and if 2.x is found, use the newer features, even if it's for 3-4 months, until we're sure that 2.x of some version is in the stock distros. Personally, I compile those critical system things myself from source, not packages. That includes perl, apache, python, gcc, yadda yadda. /d
Re: move to Python 2.x?
> There is an "excuses" or "reasons" file or similar which you can check to > find out. MJ, can you please provide a URL for that file, so we could check on the reason? But my point was that Python 2.x for Debian is available. Bill
Re: move to Python 2.x?
> 2.0 is available in debian-unstable, but for some reason isn't in > debian-testing. [...] There is an "excuses" or "reasons" file or similar which you can check to find out. The most common causes are not building on one of the debian core platforms, or something which it depends on has an unsolved critical bug. Python fans who use debian should probably take a look and see if they can lend a hand to fixing it. Having Python 2.0 in Debian 3.0 would be a very good thing, but if no-one who knows the python build process helps out, it sounds like it might not happen. MJR
Re: move to Python 2.x?
> I don't think we should "stall" our development just because python 2 > isn't available on all systems. It's not like the "old" parser will > disappear (and neither is 2.x bleeding edge:) 2.0 is available in debian-unstable, but for some reason isn't in debian-testing. 2.0 seems to be the default for SuSe. I'm not sure how to figure out what the default is for RH 7.x. Bill
Re: move to Python 2.x?
On Thu, Oct 25, 2001, MJ Ray wrote: > Start the preparations, but expect Python 1.x to be common for at least > another six months. I don't think we should "stall" our development just because python 2 isn't available on all systems. It's not like the "old" parser will disappear (and neither is 2.x bleeding edge:) If it is necessary to move to 2.x to be able to support new features, then we should move to 2.x. We can still make an old package available for those that only have 1.x and don't want to upgrade. /Mike
Re: move to Python 2.x?
> I'd be surprised if our Solaris systems had Python 2 yet. Really! Interesting... I'd have thought most folks were ahead of me in moving up. Thanks. Bill
Re: move to Python 2.x?
Bill: > I'm wondering if the world is ready for the next release of Plucker to > require Python 2.x? [...] Until the next stable Debian ships (and does anyone know if it's with Python 2?), I'm going to have to say "No", in my opinion. I know that Debian stable is regarded as somewhat behind the leading edge, but it's a good benchmark for what you can expect to be out there... not just on Linux, but Unix in general. I'd be surprised if our Solaris systems had Python 2 yet. Start the preparations, but expect Python 1.x to be common for at least another six months. MJR
