On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Claudio <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Ben Walton <[email protected]> wrote: >> Yeah, it's a poor assumption that the modules are making but...I think >> the original idea to have a non-versioned python library directory is >> that it would alleviate the need to rebuild every module for a major >> version upgrade as most thins would work on newer versions (binary >> modules exempted). > > I am probably way off, but wouldn't non-versioned libraries/trees not > lead to weird crashes? I imagine not all python releases are binary > compatible...
I would expect so, yes. We're either lucky that all of our binary modules are built against 2.6 or nobody is using the ones that aren't. Thanks -Ben -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty and wisdom will come to you that way. -Christopher Hitchens --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
