In article ,
Ned Deily wrote:
> In article ,
> "Russell E. Owen" wrote:
> > One problem I've run into is that the 64-bit Mac python 2.7 does not
> > work properly with ActiveState Tcl/Tk. One symptom is to build
> > matplotlib. The results fail -- both versions of Tcl/Tk somehow get
> > lin
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Ned Deily wrote:
> In article ,
> georg.brandl wrote:
>> +Bugfix Releases
>> +===
>> +
>> +- 3.2.1: released July 10, 2011
>> +- 3.2.2: released September 4, 2011
>> +
>> +- 3.2.3: planned February 10-17, 2012
>
> I would like to propose that we plan
In article ,
Ned Deily wrote:
> However, this may all be a moot point now as I've subsequently proposed
> a patch to Distutils to smooth over the problem by checking for the case
> of gcc-4.2 being required but not available and, if so, automatically
> substituting clang instead. (http://bugs
In article ,
"Russell E. Owen" wrote:
> One problem I've run into is that the 64-bit Mac python 2.7 does not
> work properly with ActiveState Tcl/Tk. One symptom is to build
> matplotlib. The results fail -- both versions of Tcl/Tk somehow get
> linked in.
The 64-bit OS X installer is built o
In article <4f32df1e.40...@v.loewis.de>,
"Martin v. Lowis" wrote:
> Am 05.02.2012 21:34, schrieb Ned Deily:
> > In article
> > <20120205204551.horde.ncdeyvnncxdpltxvnkzi...@webmail.df.eu>,
> > mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
> >
> >>> I understand that but, to me, it makes no sense to send out trul
In article <4f32df1e.40...@v.loewis.de>,
"Martin v. Lowis" wrote:
> Am 05.02.2012 21:34, schrieb Ned Deily:
> > In article
> > <20120205204551.horde.ncdeyvnncxdpltxvnkzi...@webmail.df.eu>,
> > mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
> >
> >>> I understand that but, to me, it makes no sense to send out trul
Am 05.02.2012 21:34, schrieb Ned Deily:
> In article
> <20120205204551.horde.ncdeyvnncxdpltxvnkzi...@webmail.df.eu>,
> mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
>
>>> I understand that but, to me, it makes no sense to send out truly
>>> broken releases. Besides, the hash collision attack is not exactly
>>>
On Feb 06, 2012, at 07:11 AM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>Well, one way to do it would be to release a rc now-ish, giving the community
>time to test it, and to already use it productively in critical cases, and
>release the final with the OSX fixes after/at PyCon.
That could work well. I'd be happy to
Am 06.02.2012 00:01, schrieb Barry Warsaw:
> On Feb 05, 2012, at 02:25 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>
>>The reason 3.2.3 is so soon is the need to patch the hash collision attack.
>
> Also remember that we are coordinating releases between several versions of
> Python for this issue, some of whic
On Feb 05, 2012, at 02:25 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
>The reason 3.2.3 is so soon is the need to patch the hash collision attack.
Also remember that we are coordinating releases between several versions of
Python for this issue, some of which are in security-only mode. The RMs of
the active st
In article
,
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Because Apple wasn't publishing versions of gcc-llvm that miscompile
> Python when those releases were made.
More importantly, Apple removed gcc-4.2 with the current versions of
Xcode 4 and the Pythons installed by our current installers require
gcc-4.2 to b
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 5:45 AM, wrote:
>
>> I understand that but, to me, it makes no sense to send out truly broken
>> releases. Besides, the hash collision attack is not exactly new either.
>> Another few weeks can't make that much of a difference.
>
>
> Why would the release be truly broken?
In article
<20120205204551.horde.ncdeyvnncxdpltxvnkzi...@webmail.df.eu>,
mar...@v.loewis.de wrote:
> > I understand that but, to me, it makes no sense to send out truly
> > broken releases. Besides, the hash collision attack is not exactly
> > new either. Another few weeks can't make that
I understand that but, to me, it makes no sense to send out truly
broken releases. Besides, the hash collision attack is not exactly
new either. Another few weeks can't make that much of a difference.
Why would the release be truly broken? It surely can't be worse than
the current release
On Feb 5, 2012, at 20:25 , Benjamin Peterson wrote:
> 2012/2/5 Ned Deily :
>> In article ,
>> georg.brandl wrote:
>>> +Bugfix Releases
>>> +===
>>> +
>>> +- 3.2.1: released July 10, 2011
>>> +- 3.2.2: released September 4, 2011
>>> +
>>> +- 3.2.3: planned February 10-17, 2012
>>
>>
2012/2/5 Ned Deily :
> In article ,
> georg.brandl wrote:
>> +Bugfix Releases
>> +===
>> +
>> +- 3.2.1: released July 10, 2011
>> +- 3.2.2: released September 4, 2011
>> +
>> +- 3.2.3: planned February 10-17, 2012
>
> I would like to propose that we plan for 3.2.3 and 2.7.3 immediatel
In article ,
georg.brandl wrote:
> +Bugfix Releases
> +===
> +
> +- 3.2.1: released July 10, 2011
> +- 3.2.2: released September 4, 2011
> +
> +- 3.2.3: planned February 10-17, 2012
I would like to propose that we plan for 3.2.3 and 2.7.3 immediately
after PyCon, so approximately M
17 matches
Mail list logo
