Re: Does 3.2 still support python 2.2?
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
Re: Does 3.2 still support python 2.2?
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-
Re: Does 3.2 still support python 2.2?
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Jim Gallacher wrote: 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? Probably :) I don't remember where the 2.0.40 came from. There may have been a technical reason for it, or may be it was just the current version at the time. I think the most honest thing to would be to say that we've tested it with 2.0.53, but it will most likely work with a few minor versions earlier just as well. Since we're part of HTTP project, we should anyhow encourage folks to use the most recent versions. Grisha