"Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński" <[email protected]> writes: > 2013/7/20 Peter FELECAN <[email protected]>: >> Anyhow, I don't get why we >> cannot do this in the unstable catalog. Support for 2.7 and associated >> eco-system should be a transition criteria from unstable to the next to >> next stable / named catalog. > > Unstable is unstable... but preferably not so unstable that Python > doesn't work any more. If we want to perform a grand rebuild, we have > the beanie catalog specifically for this kind of work.
Again, I don't get why we cannot do this kind of transition in unstable. Maybe I do not understand what we call unstable. Especially when 2.6 is not doomed by what I propose. Also, you don't state the rationale about why a 2.6 code doesn't work in a 2.7 interpreter (except "binary" modules for which I don't have a clear identification yet, neither in quality nor in quantity). -- Peter _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
