On Sun May 7 2006 10:49, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Bruce Sass wrote:
> That impression is incorrect. There was a technical reason when the
> default was defined: it was the most recent version that tat time.
> The next default will have the same property: it will be the most recent
> release. So the
Bruce Sass wrote:
>> /usr/bin/python provided by the "python" package. Right now it's 2.3.5.
>
> So it is arbitrary, as in there is no technical reason which makes 2.3.5
> most suitable.
That impression is incorrect. There was a technical reason when the
default was defined: it was the most recen
On Sun May 7 2006 01:46, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 07 mai 2006 à 01:18 -0600, Bruce Sass a écrit :
> > With that in mind, is detecting and compiling for other interpreters still
> > much too error prone?
> >
> > - find a bin/pythonX.Y
> > - check for the expected supporting dirs
> >
>
Le dimanche 07 mai 2006 à 01:18 -0600, Bruce Sass a écrit :
> With that in mind, is detecting and compiling for other interpreters still
> much too error prone?
>
> - find a bin/pythonX.Y
> - check for the expected supporting dirs
>
> If you can do those two things then it should be safe to assum
On Sat May 6 2006 06:55, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 06 mai 2006 à 04:29 -0600, Bruce Sass a écrit :
> > Is it unreasonable to want to install a module package which should work
> > with any Python and have *.pyc's automatically compiled for an
> > interpreter which lives in /usr/local/bi
5 matches
Mail list logo
