-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 17, 2008, at 10:37 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
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.
+1, but please, after I make tonight's releases. :)
- -Barry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin)
iQCVAwUBSIAFenEjvBPtnXfVAQKEewP+OWCBAH437X4+EptdcuIFFYrCCVXqbrV4
F2dZMyv/RU0jYgd6YTLspklEIzuEcH1sxYsnh2q4aWNfFlfL50LPf1/TKurZpO2C
9CrjEZpTcK0k5z5FCxAOLdVFLQDC4w7FGYop3uR27g5u9KCLdQvTrPs/mZllv263
/g2YdwhZFEE=
=NAOe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
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
