Re: Maintaining Python 1.5
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Matthias Klose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not mind passing the maintainership, but I do mind keeping it in unstable. Debian is not a museum for old python versions. What hinders you to install the python1.5 packages from woody in unstable? apt tagging is your friend. Until Python 1.5 is truly dead, many people who use Debian as a development platform need to check Python1.5 compatibility. For the sake of this argument, I'd say Python 1.5 is dead when it's no longer the Red Hat default Python version. If you don't want it in unstable, fine -- don't maintain it.
Re: Maintaining Python 1.5
Matthias Klose wrote: Moshe Zadka writes: I was wondering if you mind passing Python 1.5 maintainership to me. I do not mind passing the maintainership, but I do mind keeping it in unstable. I don't think it is up to individual Debian developers to decide what packages should be allowed in Debian. Neil
Re: Maintaining Python 1.5
Neil Schemenauer writes: Matthias Klose wrote: Moshe Zadka writes: I was wondering if you mind passing Python 1.5 maintainership to me. I do not mind passing the maintainership, but I do mind keeping it in unstable. I don't think it is up to individual Debian developers to decide what packages should be allowed in Debian. ??? Interisting. So I am allowed to package perl3, quichote-0.1 and marlais 0.5?
Re: Maintaining Python 1.5
On Wednesday 11 September 2002 15:00, Matthias Klose wrote: Neil Schemenauer writes: Matthias Klose wrote: Moshe Zadka writes: I was wondering if you mind passing Python 1.5 maintainership to me. I do not mind passing the maintainership, but I do mind keeping it in unstable. I don't think it is up to individual Debian developers to decide what packages should be allowed in Debian. ??? Interisting. So I am allowed to package perl3, quichote-0.1 and marlais 0.5? If you wanted to and could make sure it did not break anything, why not. I could definately see something like this making sense in a corporate setting. A Debian devel may not be allowed to upgrade some of their boxes and it would be easier to use foo X.Y on all platforms than deal with the compatibility. This is also why it makes sense to keep python1.5 around. As Moshe points out python1.5 is still the python most RH users get and it is way too easy to let a 2.x ism into your code. Hell on a python list this morning I was reminded that a solution I proposed only works in 2.2.1+.
Re: Maintaining Python 1.5
Moshe Zadka writes: I was wondering if you mind passing Python 1.5 maintainership to me. I do not mind passing the maintainership, but I do mind keeping it in unstable. Debian is not a museum for old python versions. What hinders you to install the python1.5 packages from woody in unstable? apt tagging is your friend. Matthias PS: You have to ask Gregor to hand over maintainership.
Re: Maintaining Python 1.5
On Sep 10, Matthias Klose wrote: Moshe Zadka writes: I was wondering if you mind passing Python 1.5 maintainership to me. I do not mind passing the maintainership, but I do mind keeping it in unstable. Debian is not a museum for old python versions. What hinders you to install the python1.5 packages from woody in unstable? apt tagging is your friend. Well, two problems I can see: 1. Woody will eventually go away to archive.debian.org land, not long after sarge is released. 2. There are woody Python packages that want libdb1, which disappears from libc6 in sid/sarge. I agree we shouldn't keep it around forever, but it seems like as long as people are using python1.5 with post-woody we should keep it. Chris -- Chris Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/ Computer Systems Manager, Physics and Astronomy, Univ. of Mississippi 125B Lewis Hall - 662-915-5765
Re: Maintaining Python 1.5
On Tuesday 10 September 2002 15:09, Chris Lawrence wrote: On Sep 10, Matthias Klose wrote: Moshe Zadka writes: I was wondering if you mind passing Python 1.5 maintainership to me. I do not mind passing the maintainership, but I do mind keeping it in unstable. Debian is not a museum for old python versions. What hinders you to install the python1.5 packages from woody in unstable? apt tagging is your friend. Well, two problems I can see: 1. Woody will eventually go away to archive.debian.org land, not long after sarge is released. 2. There are woody Python packages that want libdb1, which disappears from libc6 in sid/sarge. I agree we shouldn't keep it around forever, but it seems like as long as people are using python1.5 with post-woody we should keep it. Chris Plus there are alreayy glibc changes in sid/sarge so people running woody are being forced to upgrade glibc or compile packages by hand. There is still a fair amount of software that has only been tested with 1.5 so it is not necessarily museum quality.
