On Tue, 2011-07-26 at 12:27 +0200, Hartmut Goebel wrote: > Am 26.07.2011 12:04, schrieb Giovanni Bajo: > > I oppose any drop in compatibility that it is not backed by a strong > > showstopper. If it's needed for Python3, we can still make it conditional > > so that it only gets triggered for newer Python versions. > Well, regarding the replacement of os.system() with subprocess module: > There are many bug related to os.system, os.popen, etc. For example if > the path contains spaces, it needs to be quoted -- and it needs to be > quoted correctly.
Yes, but we went through these issues many times and it mostly works right now. > So the question is: Should we keep compatibility only for > compatibilities sake? Keep compatible with something nobody uses > anymore? Compatibility is one of PyInstaller's features. I don't oppose dropping compatibility; I oppose doing it for the sake of doing it. Generically updating to subprocess for the sake of doing it is not something that we should waste time on. If there are compelling reasons (eg: preparation for 3.0) then we keeping two code-paths don't sound like too much effort. And BTW subprocess is one of the worst designed libraries IMO, and it has many compatibility issues. It's not like problems go away magically, and in fact there is also a forked version of it available which is (in my experience) more stable: http://code.google.com/p/python-subprocess32/ -- Giovanni Bajo :: [email protected] Develer S.r.l. :: http://www.develer.com My Blog: http://giovanni.bajo.it -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PyInstaller" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pyinstaller?hl=en.
