OK then, good enough.
Next question. Should we bump the Apache version requirement as well.
Currently the docs state that Apache 2.0.40 or later is required. I
don't recall seeing anyone testing mod_python 3.2 on anything less than
apache 2.0.53. I don't know if there are any changes between 40 and 53
that may have a negative impact, but if we haven't actually tested on
the earlier versions are we just asking for trouble?
Jim
Nick wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.apache.mod-python.devel/865
Jim Gallacher wrote:
| I figured we had moved on to 2.3, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't
| missing something before I changed the docs. I'm not sure if there was a
| formal decision on this or everyone just assumed it was true. Perhaps a
| pronoucement from Grisha to make it offical?
|
| If python 2.2 support has been dropped then it needs needs to be
| mentioned in changes section of the docs, and the README as well.
|
| Jim
|
| Nick wrote:
|
|> I'm pretty sure we've had a few discussions about being able to use
|> certain functions and modules because they became available in 2.3,
|> and that's what mod_python was going to require. Like the bsddb
|> database version for your session code, for example.
|>
|> Nick
|>
|> Jim Gallacher wrote:
|>
|>> From the 3.2.5b doc:
|>>
|>>
(http://www.modpython.org/live/mod_python-3.2.5b/doc-html/inst-prerequisites.html)
|>>
|>>
|>> 2.1 Prerequisites
|>>
|>> * Python 2.2.1 or later. Earlier versions of Python will not work.
|>>
|>>
|>> Is this still true or have we dropped support for python < 2.3? Has
|>> anybody tested using python 2.2.1?
|>>
|>> Jim
|>
|>
|>
|>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDmj4Cv4zJ7LQ+i84RAh9VAJ9rWpumf/Bdky9NuK0bvX96NHrmQQCeKSDD
JAF18Qqe3CvDezgOww9599A=
=tlHN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
