Well currently there is some code in petsc-dev which is not python2.2 compatible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No module named platform ******************************************************************************* Since this is petsc-dev and I think our python2.2 compatibility wrt release should be till oct 10 [RHEL3 EOL - with python2.2 is oct-10] - I think its ok to increase the requirement to python2.3 for petsc-dev. But I figured I'll check first. [Fix for python 2.2 is to change to use executeShellCommand()] thanks, Satish On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Barry Smith wrote: > > We don't want to require people who use PETSc to have to go and download a > "new" version of python just because they are using it to install PETSc. This > means that so long as "reasonably commonly" used systems still have 2.2 we > need to live with 2.2 limitations. Then it comes down to how do with measure > "reasonably commonly" used systems, that is how do we determine when some > system is no longer reasonably commonly used? I'd rather error on the side of > not forcing people to update python then forcing them to update just so > ./config/configure.py has slightly cleaner code. > > Note that does not mean that we should use python 2.2 for everything. For > example, if Lisandro were to decide that PETSc4py would require 3.0 I think > that would be completely reasonable. The difference is if python is tool the > user is working with when they can benefit from the latest and greatest > features vs just a tool that PETSc uses to get installed. > > > > Barry > > On Feb 3, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > > So if RHEL supports it for 20 years, we should? > > > > Matt > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > > > We should keep it. The important date is not when new feature is introduced > > but when the packagers actually distribute it. > > > > Barry > > > > On Feb 3, 2010, at 9:57 AM, Satish Balay wrote: > > > > On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Matthew Knepley wrote: > > > > The last release of Python 2.2 was May 30, 2003. The fixes Satish > > has just put in are pretty ugly. At what point do we give up on an > > antiquated Python? > > > > I think its good if we can keep configure working for a wide rane of > > python versions [whatever the user has]. > > > > One timeline we can use is - RHEL/CentOS EOL dates. RHEL3/CentOS3 with > > python2.2 is supported till Oct 31, 2010, RHEL4/CentOS4 with default > > python2.3 is supported til Feb 29, 2012. > > > > Or drop python2.2 for next release... Barry can decide... > > > > Satish > > > > > > > > > > -- > > What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments > > is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments > > lead. > > -- Norbert Wiener >
