> 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
> 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-
> > 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 t
> 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 suppor
> 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 wa
> 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
> 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 uns
> 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 defa
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
> 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
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
I'm wondering if the world is ready for the next release of Plucker to
require Python 2.x? Everything in the current distiller seems to work
(on Unix) with 1.5.2, 2.0, 2.1, and 2.2, but I'm thinking that we'd
like to take advantage of the better support for character sets and
XML parsing in 2.x.
12 matches
Mail list logo