On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 09:32:49PM +0200, Moshe Zadka wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 16:25:44 -0800, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Is it possible for a program to use deprecated 1.5 things and
> > > not work with 2.0?
> > Possible, but extre
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 09:32:49PM +0200, Moshe Zadka wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 16:25:44 -0800, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is it possible for a program to use deprecated 1.5 things and
> > not work with 2.0?
> Possible, but extremely unlikely.
If that's the case, why bother with
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, Peter Eckersley wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 02:10:25PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > You mean all python programs will work with 2.0 until 2.1 is out and
> > programs start using its features. At that point every problem I predicted
> > is going to bite you.
> >
>
> Exactl
On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 02:10:25PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Moshe Zadka wrote:
> > s/posible/certain/
> > Python 2.1 already contains many features future programs will be
> > able to use. (It's not out now, but alpha is supposed to be released
> > in a few days)
>
> > OTOH, all Python programs
Moshe Zadka wrote:
> s/posible/certain/
> Python 2.1 already contains many features future programs will be
> able to use. (It's not out now, but alpha is supposed to be released
> in a few days)
> OTOH, all Python programs in Debian *should* work with 2.0. If they
> do not, then they have a bug
In Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:32:49 +0200 (IST) Moshe Zadka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum
veritate scripsit :
> OTOH, all Python programs in Debian *should* work with 2.0. If they
> do not, then they have a bug -- and it should be fixed.
> So, as a Perl basher , I think Python will not cause the same
> probl
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 16:25:44 -0800, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is where I begin getting flashbacks to the whole perl SNAFU. Is it
> possible for a python program to use python 2.0 features and not work
> with 1.5?
Yes, that it possible, and even likely for programs written now.
Disclaimer: I don't know much about python. I just want to make sure
that you're not making the same mistakes that were made when perl was
modified so multiple versions could be installed at one time.
> . Python 1.5 was installed and we decide to install 2.0
> python 1.5 specific package
On 11 Jan 2001 12:34:14 -0600, Rob Tillotson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But for purposes of packaging infrastructure, we can't rely on that.
Right -- but it does mean each installed version of Python should
know what API version it needs, and installed extensions should
know what API version th
Moshe Zadka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Only CPython uses .pycs. Stackless uses the same PYCs as the
> corresponding version of CPython, JPython uses .class files.
> Python.NET is MS vapour, so I have no idea what it uses.
This isn't really restricted to .pycs -- the point is that a package
cann
On 10 Jan 2001 10:07:16 -0600, Rob Tillotson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (Does anyone know where the bytecode format is documented? I am
> > interested in understanding how bytecode works and is designed.)
>
> As far as I know it's only documented in the source. The standard
> module "dis.py
On 10 Jan 2001 09:16:51 -0600, Rob Tillotson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Python 1.5 and 2.0 --- there is also jpython, stackless, perhaps
> even python.net, and it might eventually be desirable to have all of
> these installed side-by-side with separate sets of library modules.
Only CPython uses
Rob Tillotson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, it's not a matter of switching, really -- it's a matter of
> having multiple versions of the interpreter installed at the same time
> and being able to use any of them at any time.
Well, even there are two or more interpreters installed on the s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) writes:
> > It seems rather cumbersome that all version independent packages would
> > have to be recompiled every time you switch python versions. That's
> However, It is strange to periodically switch from one version to
> another.
Well, it's not a matter o
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 10:07:16AM -0600, Rob Tillotson wrote:
> D-Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > (Does anyone know where the bytecode format is documented? I am
> > interested in understanding how bytecode works and is designed.)
>
> As far as I know it's only documented in the source. The
D-Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are .pyc's incompatible across versions or did the bytecode spec
> remain the same?
According to the NEWS file for Python 2.0, bytecode files are not
compatible between releases. You can verify this by using both python
1.5 and 2.0 to import the same .py file a
Rob Tillotson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Note that there is no change to the interpreter necessary to achieve
> this. Debian Python installations already search in both
> /usr/lib/python/site-packages and /usr/lib/site-python for packages.
I'm glad to see that my post is making people react
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 09:16:51AM -0600, Rob Tillotson wrote:
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) writes:
| > And thanks to a small change in the interpreter, the current version
| > looks for modules in /usr/lib/python//site-packages and
| > then /usr/lib/python/site-package. Other modules
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) writes:
> And thanks to a small change in the interpreter, the current version
> looks for modules in /usr/lib/python//site-packages and
> then /usr/lib/python/site-package. Other modules are invisible.
Note that there is no change to the interpreter necessa
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 10:14:17AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > * we make /usr/bin/python point to python 2 thanks to alternatives
>
> Oh gag. This was the same thing that's made perl such a mess. The major
> problem (or one of them) is that packages that need py
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 10:14:17AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> * we make /usr/bin/python point to python 2 thanks to alternatives
Oh gag. This was the same thing that's made perl such a mess. The major
problem (or one of them) is that packages that need python 2 can't rely
on /usr/bin/pyth
Hi all,
I'm reposting this mail on -devel as not all python modules maintainers
are -python subscribers. Discussions will continue on -python.
This version contains small modifications from the one firstly posted
on -python.
Proposal: Reorganizing Python for Python 2.
---
22 matches
Mail list logo
