On Tuesday 05 December 2006 17:30, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
People at the meeting specifically said whether security patches
would still be applied to older releases, and for how many older
releases. Linux distributors are hesitant to make commitments to
maintain a software package if they know
Anthony Baxter schrieb:
So I think a public statement that we will support 2.4 with
security patches for a while longer (and perhaps with security
patches *only*) would be a good thing - independent of the LSB,
actually.
Well, I don't know what sort of public statement you want to issue,
On 12/5/06, Anthony Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I think a public statement that we will support 2.4 with
security patches for a while longer (and perhaps with security
patches *only*) would be a good thing - independent of the LSB,
actually.
Well, I don't know what sort of public
Neal Norwitz schrieb:
I think we should document our intentions in the release PEP (or some
other PEP possibly). Should we state that we will support version x.y
for N years after initial release or based on version numbers such as
x.(y-N) where y is the current version and N is a small
At the LSB meeting, there was a brief discussion of what Python
version should be incorporated into LSB. This is more an issue
if ABI compatibility for the C ABI is desired, but even if only
script portability is a goal, application developers will need
to know what APIs they have available in LSB
What, if any, impact do you think the LSB should have wrt maintaining 2.4?
n
On 12/4/06, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the LSB meeting, there was a brief discussion of what Python
version should be incorporated into LSB. This is more an issue
if ABI compatibility for the C ABI
Neal Norwitz schrieb:
What, if any, impact do you think the LSB should have wrt maintaining 2.4?
People at the meeting specifically said whether security patches would
still be applied to older releases, and for how many older releases.
Linux distributors are hesitant to make commitments to
