Martin v. Löwis wrote:
In one has both 2.x and 3.0 installed, would it easy to install 'lib.py'
for both?
It's currently not possible to install something for 2.x; you have to
specifically install it for every value of x (e.g. 2.5 or 2.6).
That is what I meant.
It's the same for 3.0: you ha
> In one has both 2.x and 3.0 installed, would it easy to install 'lib.py'
> for both?
It's currently not possible to install something for 2.x; you have to
specifically install it for every value of x (e.g. 2.5 or 2.6).
It's the same for 3.0: you have to install it separately.
Doing so is fairl
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Is there something like that already in place? What are the
recommendations for library
authors willing to support both Python 2.X and 3.X in parallel?
My recommendation is to use 3.0's build_py_2to3 implementation of
the build_py command. See Demo/distutils/test2to3.
Yo
> Is there something like that already in place? What are the
> recommendations for library
> authors willing to support both Python 2.X and 3.X in parallel?
My recommendation is to use 3.0's build_py_2to3 implementation of
the build_py command. See Demo/distutils/test2to3.
You will have a single
