On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 10:26:09PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le mardi 12 juillet 2005 à 14:35 -0500, Kenneth Pronovici a écrit : > > I did some hacking on pychecker earlier this year, and it was really > > nice to have 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 all available on the same Debian > > system. I would be disappointed if Debian dropped these interpreters > > completely for etch. > > > > Hopefully, it wouldn't be too difficult to continue supporting these > > interpreters until upstream declares them dead. > > I strongly disagree. Not only does supporting too many versions of the > interpreter is more difficult - not speaking of the added burden to the > security team - but this is cluttering the archive, complicating the > maintainers' work and the major version transitions, wasting time that > could be spent to more useful tasks. Having only one python version (at > least for most packages) would save hundreds of packages in the > distribution, and it's that less work for maintainers.
I think you misunderstood my suggestion, and probably the suggestion of the OP. I did not suggest that we continue to maintain packages depending on these old Python versions. I just suggested that we continue to support the interpreters themselves, so that users can invoke them directly if desired. This in and of itself should not be a large burden on the security team and should not result in very many extra packages in the archive (at least not hundreds extra). I can't speak for the burden on the python maintainers themselves, which is why I was hoping (in the part of my message you trimmed) that they might speak up and tell us how much of a burden this might be. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgpqLbWFGfQVV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
