On 1/28/2010 1:37 AM, Paul Rubin wrote:
David Cournapeau writes:
That's not windows specific - most packages which distribute binary
packages need to package binaries for every minor version (2.4, 2.5,
etc...)
I doubt that's what Paul was referring to, though - he seemed more
concern with A
>> I'm going to be starting some new Python projects in Python 2.6, but am
>> concerned that at least three of the libraries I will be
>> using--pycrypto, paramiko and feedparser--are not currently supported in
>> Python 3.x. The authors of these programs have not given any indication
>> that work
David Cournapeau writes:
> So yes, you could say "just try and if it crashes, check that it is
> not ABI-related". In practice, this is very poor engineering in my
> book...
I just looked at PEP 384 and I don't see anything in it about version
numbers in the interfaces. I certainly think somethi
David Cournapeau, 28.01.2010 09:54:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>
>> That doesn't completely match my experience. It's true that there is no
>> guarantee that the ABI will stay compatible, but when you compile lxml
>> against Py2.4 on a 32bit machine, it will continue t
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>
> That doesn't completely match my experience. It's true that there is no
> guarantee that the ABI will stay compatible, but when you compile lxml
> against Py2.4 on a 32bit machine, it will continue to import in Py2.5 and
> (IIRC) Py2.6. It
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> It's important to note that this is mitigated, ironically enough, by
> intentionally targeting a minimum Python minor version because the code
> base makes use of Python features not available in older versions.
>
> That is, any minor version
David Cournapeau, 28.01.2010 06:58:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
>> For a windows user who depends on pre-built binaries, every new release
>> breaks *every* library that is not pure Python and needs to be compiled.
>
> That's not windows specific - most packages which
David Cournapeau writes:
> Unstable may be strong - every minor version of python has a lifespan
> of several years. But yes, that's an hindrance for packagers: you need
> to package binaries for every minor version of python
It's important to note that this is mitigated, ironically enough, by
i
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> David Cournapeau writes:
>> That's not windows specific - most packages which distribute binary
>> packages need to package binaries for every minor version (2.4, 2.5,
>> etc...)
>> I doubt that's what Paul was referring to, though - he see
David Cournapeau writes:
> That's not windows specific - most packages which distribute binary
> packages need to package binaries for every minor version (2.4, 2.5,
> etc...)
> I doubt that's what Paul was referring to, though - he seemed more
> concern with API/language changes than ABI issu
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Terry Reedy wrote:
>
> For a windows user who depends on pre-built binaries, every new release
> breaks *every* library that is not pure Python and needs to be compiled.
That's not windows specific - most packages which distribute binary
packages need to package
On 1/27/2010 2:03 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes:
From my POV, your question would be precisely identical if you had
started your project when Python 2.3 was just released and wanted to
know if the libraries you selected would be available for Python 2.6.
I didn't re
Kevin Walzer wrote:
I'm going to be starting some new Python projects in Python 2.6, but am
concerned that at least three of the libraries I will be
using--pycrypto, paramiko and feedparser--are not currently supported in
Python 3.x. The authors of these programs have not given any indication
Kevin Walzer wrote:
> I'm going to be starting some new Python projects in Python 2.6, but
> am concerned that at least three of the libraries I will be
> using--pycrypto, paramiko and feedparser--are not currently supported
> in Python 3.x. The authors of these programs have not given any
> indica
On Jan 27, 2:03 pm, Paul Rubin wrote:
> a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes:
> > From my POV, your question would be precisely identical if you had
> > started your project when Python 2.3 was just released and wanted to
> > know if the libraries you selected would be available for Python 2.6.
>
>
On 07:03 pm, no.em...@nospam.invalid wrote:
a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes:
From my POV, your question would be precisely identical if you had
started your project when Python 2.3 was just released and wanted to
know if the libraries you selected would be available for Python 2.6.
I didn't
a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes:
> From my POV, your question would be precisely identical if you had
> started your project when Python 2.3 was just released and wanted to
> know if the libraries you selected would be available for Python 2.6.
I didn't realize 2.6 broke libraries that had work
In article <9f3c3$4b605a65$4275d90a$30...@fuse.net>,
Kevin Walzer wrote:
>
>I'm going to be starting some new Python projects in Python 2.6, but am
>concerned that at least three of the libraries I will be
>using--pycrypto, paramiko and feedparser--are not currently supported in
>Python 3.x. T
18 matches
Mail list logo
