On Sat, 2014-09-13 at 11:50 -0400, William Blevins wrote: > I think the short answer is yes, we are trying to support 2.6 in the > future. I agree with this notion since I would like RHEL6 default python > support, but wouldn't cry if I had to use a custom 2.7 install. The real > question here is why is there confusion about this, and why does SCons > since 2.3.0 complain about pre-2.7 versus pre-2.6 if we are trying to > support 2.6? That is a question I cannot answer... I think that we should > either drop 2.6 support or fix the documentation and development > expectations. Maybe the confusion with 2.7 is related to python 3 support? > Once that branch roles out we probably cannot reasonably expect to support > 2.6.
The problem here, as you hint at, is that a decision was made that 2.7 was the base version, but the documentation was inconsistent with the decision and now people are trying to fix perfectly good 2.7 code to work with 2.6. The confusion is caused by the confusion :-) So we need an explicit move, either 2.7 is the base and the documentation changes or the 2.7 decision is rescinded and a new one to say 2.6 is the base is made. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:[email protected] 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
