On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Tres Seaver <tsea...@palladion.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 10/16/2012 09:47 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > On Oct 16, 2012, at 05:32 AM, Trent Nelson wrote: > > > >> Anyway, back to the original question: does anyone know of reasons > >> we shouldn't bump to 2.69? Any known incompatibilities? > > > > There will be problems building with 2.69 on Ubuntus older than > > 12.10, and Debians older than wheezy. > > > > % rmadison autoconf autoconf | 2.61-4 | hardy | source, > > all autoconf | 2.65-3ubuntu1 | lucid | source, all autoconf | > > 2.67-2ubuntu1 | natty | source, all autoconf | 2.68-1ubuntu1 | > > oneiric | source, all autoconf | 2.68-1ubuntu2 | precise | > > source, all autoconf | 2.69-1ubuntu1 | quantal | source, all % > > rmadison -u debian autoconf autoconf | 2.67-2 | squeeze | source, all > > autoconf | 2.69-1 | wheezy | source, all autoconf | 2.69-1 | sid > > | source, all > > > > FWIW, precise is Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, so it carries Python 2.7 and 3.2. > > I think it would be fine to update the default branch (i.e. 3.4), but > > I'm not sure what benefit you gain from making this change to stable > > branches, and you could potentially cause build problems, which you > > may not find out about for a while, e.g. when 2.7.4 is released and > > all the distros go to update. > > Agreed: this is really the same issue as bumping the VisualStudio > version (or any other build tooling) inside a release line: too much > potential for breakage for little gain. > I think Barry's suggestion of updating default and leaving stable versions alone is a good one.
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
