On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > >> Unless I hear otherwise, I will add it to PEP 3108. > > Please do! >
Done. -Brett _______________________________________________ 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
