On 11/28/05, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> > Perhaps the following compromise can be made: the PSF accepts patches
> > from reputable platform maintainers. (Of course, like all
> > contributions, they must be of high quality and not break anything,
> > etc
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I don't recall why DOS support was removed (PEP 11 doesn't say)
The PEP was actually created after the removal, so you added (or
asked me to add) this entry:
Name: MS-DOS, MS-Windows 3.x
Unsupported in: Python 2.0
Code removed in: Python 2.
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> Perhaps the following compromise can be made: the PSF accepts patches
> from reputable platform maintainers. (Of course, like all
> contributions, they must be of high quality and not break anything,
> etc., before they are accepted.) If such patches cause problems with
>
On 11/20/05, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The local python community here in Sydney indicated that python.org is
> > only upset when groups port the source to 'obscure' systems and *don't*
> > submit patches... It is possible that I was misinformed.
>
> It's not that much availability of the platform I worry about, but the
> commitment of the Python porter. We need somebody to forward bug
> reports to, and somebody to intervene if incompatible changes are made.
> This person would also indicate that the platform is no longer
> available, and hen
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 11:06:16PM +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > I would appreciate feedback concerning these patches before the next
>> > "PythonD" (for DOS/DJGPP) is released.
>>
>> PEP 11 says that DOS is not supported anymore since Python 2.0. So
>> I am -1
Ben Decker wrote:
> I think the port has beed supported for three years now. I am not
> sure what kind of commitment you are looking for, but the patch and
> software are supplied under the same terms of liability and warranty
> as anything else under the GPL.
That (licensed under GPL) would be an
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 06:08:45PM +1100, Ben Decker wrote:
> I think the port has beed supported for three years now. I am not sure what
> kind of commitment you are looking for, but the patch and software are
> supplied under the same terms of liability and warranty as anything else
> under the G
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The local python community here in Sydney indicated that python.org is
> only upset when groups port the source to 'obscure' systems and *don't*
> submit patches... It is possible that I was misinformed.
I never heard such concerns. I personally wouldn't notice if somebo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've taken a glance at the patch. There are probably a few things to quarrel
> over--for instance, it looks like a site.py change will cause python to print
> a blank line when it's started, and the removal of a '#define HAVE_FORK 1' in
> posixmodule.c---but this still
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 11:06:16PM +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I would appreciate feedback concerning these patches before the next
> > "PythonD" (for DOS/DJGPP) is released.
>
> PEP 11 says that DOS is not supported anymore since Python 2.0. So
> I am -1 on rein
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I would appreciate feedback concerning these patches before the next
> "PythonD" (for DOS/DJGPP) is released.
PEP 11 says that DOS is not supported anymore since Python 2.0. So
I am -1 on reintroducing support for it.
Regards,
Martin
Hello,
I would appreciate feedback concerning these patches before the next
"PythonD" (for DOS/DJGPP) is released.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Ben Decker
Systems Integrator
http://www.caddit.net
-
Stay ahead of the information curve.
Receive MCAD n
13 matches
Mail list logo
