On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > On Mon, 4 Feb 2013, Jed Brown wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Karl Rupp <rupp at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >> >> > Hi Jed, >> > >> > interesting, thanks for sharing. I don't think that there is a significant >> > difference for PETSc users, since most Python installations come from >> > package repositories (as shown on the page). On clusters I'd say that there >> > is a slight bias towards older versions in general, not just Python. >> > >> >> The article has massive selection bias: all people surveyed are actively >> using Python in their work. Many PETSc users don't write Python at all, >> PETSc is just using it for the build. If latter population was as >> up-to-date as these astro folks, we'd be able to drop compatibility for >> 10-year old versions of Python and upgrade a lot of cruddy code. > > Since we use python for configure [which is supporsed to be portable] > - we shouldn't be insiting on single/latest version of python - like > any of these python applications can do. We have to support as > many[and old] version as we can.
At least specifying >= 2.5 we can support both python 2 & 3 with the same codebase.
