On 11/20/05, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The local python community here in Sydney indicated that python.org is
only upset when groups port the source to 'obscure' systems and *don't*
submit patches... It is possible that I was misinformed.
I never
Guido van Rossum wrote:
Perhaps the following compromise can be made: the PSF accepts patches
from reputable platform maintainers. (Of course, like all
contributions, they must be of high quality and not break anything,
etc., before they are accepted.) If such patches cause problems with
Guido van Rossum wrote:
I don't recall why DOS support was removed (PEP 11 doesn't say)
The PEP was actually created after the removal, so you added (or
asked me to add) this entry:
Name: MS-DOS, MS-Windows 3.x
Unsupported in: Python 2.0
Code removed in: Python
On 11/28/05, Martin v. Löwis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guido van Rossum wrote:
Perhaps the following compromise can be made: the PSF accepts patches
from reputable platform maintainers. (Of course, like all
contributions, they must be of high quality and not break anything,
etc., before
quote who=[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 11:06:16PM +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would appreciate feedback concerning these patches before the next
PythonD (for DOS/DJGPP) is released.
PEP 11 says that DOS is not supported anymore since Python 2.0. So
It's not that much availability of the platform I worry about, but the
commitment of the Python porter. We need somebody to forward bug
reports to, and somebody to intervene if incompatible changes are made.
This person would also indicate that the platform is no longer
available, and hence
Ben Decker wrote:
I think the port has beed supported for three years now. I am not
sure what kind of commitment you are looking for, but the patch and
software are supplied under the same terms of liability and warranty
as anything else under the GPL.
That (licensed under GPL) would be an
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 11:06:16PM +0100, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would appreciate feedback concerning these patches before the next
PythonD (for DOS/DJGPP) is released.
PEP 11 says that DOS is not supported anymore since Python 2.0. So
I am -1 on reintroducing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've taken a glance at the patch. There are probably a few things to quarrel
over--for instance, it looks like a site.py change will cause python to print
a blank line when it's started, and the removal of a '#define HAVE_FORK 1' in
posixmodule.c---but this still
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The local python community here in Sydney indicated that python.org is
only upset when groups port the source to 'obscure' systems and *don't*
submit patches... It is possible that I was misinformed.
I never heard such concerns. I personally wouldn't notice if somebody
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would appreciate feedback concerning these patches before the next
PythonD (for DOS/DJGPP) is released.
PEP 11 says that DOS is not supported anymore since Python 2.0. So
I am -1 on reintroducing support for it.
Regards,
Martin
Hello,
I would appreciate feedback concerning these patches before the next
PythonD (for DOS/DJGPP) is released.
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Ben Decker
Systems Integrator
http://www.caddit.net
-
Stay ahead of the information curve.
Receive MCAD
12 matches
Mail list logo
