Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 10:53:53AM -0500, Michael Tiemann wrote:
> > OTOH, if somebody can make a really definitive statement that I've
> > misinterpreted the responses, and that 2.x _as_ python should just work,
> > and if it doesn't, it's a bug that
Eric> Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "should just work". Source
>> compatibility between 1.5.2 and 2.0 is very high. The 2.0 NEWS file
>> should list all the changes (single argument append and socket
>> addresses are the big ones).
Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm not sure what you mean by "should just work". Source
> compatibility between 1.5.2 and 2.0 is very high. The 2.0 NEWS
> file should list all the changes (single argument append and
> socket addresses are the big ones).
And that change only affected a
On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 10:53:53AM -0500, Michael Tiemann wrote:
> OTOH, if somebody can make a really definitive statement that I've
> misinterpreted the responses, and that 2.x _as_ python should just work,
> and if it doesn't, it's a bug that needs to shake out, I can address that
> with our OS
Based on the responses I have seen, it appears that this is not the kind of
issue we want to address in a .1 release. I talked with Matt Wilson, the
most active Python developer here, and he's all for moving to 2.x for our
next .0 product, but for compatibility reasons it sounds like the option of
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Moshe Zadka wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2001 02:39:11 -0500, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > The binaries should be called python1.5 and python2.0, and python
> > should be a symlink to whatever is the default one.
>
> No they shouldn't. Joey Hess wrote to debian-
On 07-Feb-2001 Moshe Zadka wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2001 02:39:11 -0500, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> The binaries should be called python1.5 and python2.0, and python
>> should be a symlink to whatever is the default one.
>
> No they shouldn't. Joey Hess wrote to debian-python
On Wed, 07 Feb 2001 02:39:11 -0500, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The binaries should be called python1.5 and python2.0, and python
> should be a symlink to whatever is the default one.
No they shouldn't. Joey Hess wrote to debian-python about the problems
such a scheme caused when
> That's how woody works now, and the binaries are called python and python2.
The binaries should be called python1.5 and python2.0, and python
should be a symlink to whatever is the default one. This is how the
standard "make install" works, and it makes it possible for scripts to
require a spec
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Copying Michael Tiemann on this, as he can actually get Red Hat to move...)
Copying to debian-python, since it's an important issue there too...
> I've investigated this. The state of the Red Hat 7.1 beta seem to be
> that it w
10 matches
Mail list logo
