On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 01:12:32PM +0200, Joachim Schipper wrote: > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:04:24PM +0100, Federico G. Schwindt wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:16:09PM +0200, Joachim Schipper wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 05:00:19PM +0100, Federico G. Schwindt wrote: > > > > hi, > > > > > > > > is there any reason to keep 2.5 around and specially as the default? > > > > 2.6 has been stable for some time now and all the ports should work > > > > with > > > > it. itoh, 2.5 is not maintained anymore except for some sporadic > > > > security > > > > updates. > > > > having to check your ports against 2.5 and 2.6 is time consuming (I'm > > > > not > > > > considering 2.4 as should only used for zope), but unfortunately is > > > > required > > > > for a number of reasons. > > > > so i propose to remove 2.5 and apply the diff below. this also > > > > removes > > > > mentions to 2.3 and updates the comments to mention other ports > > > > hardcoding > > > > the python version. > > > > comments? objections? oks? > > > > > > As others have said, moving to 2.6 makes a lot of sense; but if you are > > > e.g. developing software in Python, having 2.5 around is useful for > > > compatibility testing. So ports wouldn't need to be tested against 2.5, > > > but it shouldn't be deleted either. > > > > ugh? if we have 2.5 in the tree, even if it's not the default we should > > be testing with it. like we test 2.6 at the moment even when it's not the > > default. why would that change? > > I was under the impression that 2.6 was tested because OpenBSD wants to > move to that version. Python 2.4 is also in-tree, but ports are not > regularly tested against it, right? 2.5 could get the same status.
the only reason 2.4 is around is because zope. i don't think it works the same for 2.5, but if it's ok to completely ignore 2.5, then fine. f.-
