Re: python version again

2004-03-03 Thread Michael Nordstrom
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004, Jewett, Jim J wrote: > FWIW, I would like to use several features that don't appear in > Python 1.5, a few that don't appear until 2.3, and even a few > that won't become standard until 2.4. (I know I would have to > distribute versions for those.) I think it would be OK

python version again

2004-02-26 Thread Jewett, Jim J
A while ago, I asked which version of python we were assuming. The answer came back that we really weren't; on Mac and Linux, we were using the system's python. So I'll ask again: how much support is required for which python? Is it OK if certain features require at least Python x.x? Is it OK

Re: Python version

2003-12-03 Thread Bill Janssen
> As of Mac OS X version 10.2 (Jaguar), OS X ships with python as part of > the OS. It is python version 2.2, and IIRC is customized to work fast on > that OS. As of Mac OS X 10.3 (Panther) it's Python 2.3. Bill ___ plucker-dev maili

Re: Python version

2003-12-03 Thread Robert OConnor
Hi Jim, I can help provide some info about Python versions. There is no python distributed with either the Mac OSX nor Linux distributions. As of Mac OS X version 10.2 (Jaguar), OS X ships with python as part of the OS. It is python version 2.2, and IIRC is customized to work fast on that OS

Python version

2003-12-03 Thread Jewett, Jim J
I do not want to override any more than I need to, because then plucker never gets the advantage of python bugfixes and enhancements. (Example: Plucker overrides sgmllib.attrfind. At one point, there were several bugs in the python version. Plucker fixed one -- but python has since fixed th

Which python version

2003-10-14 Thread Jewett, Jim J
(1) Python is available elsewhere, and not including it might reduce the load. (2) Which version of python is the next release assuming? 2.3.2? ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev

Re: Bug 52 would be fixed by upgrading the Python version

2002-01-31 Thread Joe A
--- Kjetil Torgrim Homme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not really. In Python 2, you will have the same > problem with https... > > See bug 57295 in Red Hat Bugzilla. > > > Kjetil T. It's fixed in Python 2.2. http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=5470&atid=305470&func=detail&aid=490515 I

Re: Bug 52 would be fixed by upgrading the Python version

2002-01-31 Thread Kjetil Torgrim Homme
Bill Janssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So this is another bug that would be fixed by moving to a newer > version of Python -- the bug isn't in the 2.0 libraries. Not really. In Python 2, you will have the same problem with https... See bug 57295 in Red Hat Bugzilla. Kjetil T.

Bug 52 would be fixed by upgrading the Python version

2002-01-31 Thread Bill Janssen
So this is another bug that would be fixed by moving to a newer version of Python -- the bug isn't in the 2.0 libraries. Bill