Li-Wen Hsu wrote:
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 22:57:14 +1000, Andrew MacIntyre wrote:
Given the experimental nature of Python 3.0, and the fact that 3.1 is
out, it seems to me that Python 3.0's time in the ports collection
should not be extended.
Yes. But as long as we do not set Python 3.0 as the default Python
version, I thought there is no harm keeping 3.0 in the ports tree.
Python 3.0 was never intended for production use, and is pretty much
dead as far as the Python dev team are concerned. A decision has
basically been taken that no further maintenance releases will be
issued. Very few third party extension modules have been ported to it.
All effort devoted to Python 3.x is being focussed on 3.1 and later.
I think there are strong grounds for burying the 3.0 port, in the same
way that release candidate ports get buried when a final release is made
- Python 3.x was effectively a release candidate (beta release more
like) of Python 3.1.
However, is there any need for keeping python 2.3, or even 2.4 in the
ports tree?
2.4 definitely, as Zope is still tied (officially) to it. 2.3 is still
widely used in some environments, and is still being actively supported
by some third party module developers.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew I MacIntyre "These thoughts are mine alone..."
E-mail: andy...@bullseye.apana.org.au (pref) | Snail: PO Box 370
andy...@pcug.org.au (alt) | Belconnen ACT 2616
Web: http://www.andymac.org/ | Australia
_______________________________________________
freebsd-python@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-python
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-python-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
