On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Fred Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jul 17, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote: >> >> bsddb is in a very bad shape, as the 2.6 code hasn't been merged into >> 3k. I somewhat doubt that this gets resolved before the release, so >> bsddb users might need to skip 3.0. > > > In fact, bsddb as packages in core Python has rarely been in good shape. > > Has anyone actually considered that bsddb might do better if maintained > strictly as an external package? That would make it easier for the any > maintainers to release updates, and removes a source of frustration for > users who either don't need it or would rather wait for a happier version. > > I think this is worth considering. I vaguely recall that the bsddb module > was maintained before it was incorporated into the core Python release.
+1. In my recollection maintaining bsddb has been nothing but trouble right from the start when we were all sitting together at "Zope Corp North" in a rented office in McLean... We can remove it from 3.0. We can't really remove it from 2.6, but we can certainly start end-of-lifing it in 2.6. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
