Mechanize (and ClientForm on which it depends) does work with Python 2.4: http://wwwsearch.sourceforge.net/mechanize/
(See the section on compatibility.) On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Adam Barth <aba...@webkit.org> wrote: > My understanding is that some of the libraries we use, like Mechanize, > don't work in Python 2.4. My complaint in Bug 36063 is that we're > re-implementing Mechanize poorly. I'd rather we just upgraded the > machines that need to run-webkit-tests to a more modern version of > Python. > > Adam > > > On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Chris Jerdonek <cjerdo...@webkit.org> wrote: >> No one responded back with a summary of the Python 2.4 discussion, so >> I'll attempt a summary of my own after reading-- >> >> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35584 >> >> (If you recall, we are trying to decide what Python code we write >> needs to work with Python 2.4.) >> >> The Chromium project still uses Python 2.4 in a significant way. Some >> Chromium bots run new-run-webkit-tests using 2.4, and a number of >> developers use 2.4 in their development environments. Generally >> speaking, people support upgrading, but no one is spearheading an >> upgrade and there is no ETA. >> >> For the time being, because of the bots, it seems like >> new-run-webkit-tests definitely needs to keep working with 2.4. But >> for the tools used more in the development environment (webkit-patch, >> etc), it seems like people would be willing to find a way to make >> things work with 2.5+. >> >> It would be pretty easy to get all of our Python code working with 2.4 >> (we had a patch for this a couple weeks ago), but going back wouldn't >> let us use some of the nicer constructs. And we would have to contend >> with at least one bug in 2.4. >> >> (End of summary.) >> >> Plainly, the options seem to be-- >> >> (1) All Python 2.5+ >> (2) All Python 2.4 >> (3) Some combination of (1) and (2) (e.g. new-run-webkit-tests 2.4, >> everything else 2.5) >> >> However, (1) does not seem to be an option. Personally, I'm starting >> to lean more toward to (2). One reason is that we are already >> starting to see a case of re-implementing in Python 2.4 (for >> new-run-webkit-tests) code that was already written in 2.5: >> >> https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36063#c4 >> >> I also think it would be helpful if we did not need to have this >> discussion for each new script we decide to write in Python. I would >> be willing to update the patch from a couple weeks ago that adjusts >> things for 2.4. >> >> --Chris >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Chris Jerdonek <cjerdo...@webkit.org> wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 6:43 PM, David Kilzer <ddkil...@webkit.org> wrote: >>>> On Thu, March 4, 2010 at 5:35:08 PM, William Siegrist wrote: >>>> >>>>> Since I have a Tiger machine handy, I tested this and was able to build >>>>> python >>>>> 2.5.5 from MacPorts on a PowerPC. It takes a while, but it worked. I did >>>>> not try >>>>> python 2.6. >>>> >>>> I've installed python 2.6.4 using MacPorts on my PowerBook G4 running >>>> Tiger 10.4.11, and it's worked find with webkit-patch the one or two times >>>> I tried it. >>> >>> That sounds great. Thanks a lot, Dave and Bill. So does it seem safe >>> to say, then, that folks on 2.3 can upgrade if it ever becomes >>> necessary to use one of the tools? >>> >>> As for Python 2.4, I haven't been following the discussion as closely >>> since it seems to affect Chromium developers more. Can someone >>> summarize the state of the discussion there -- does it seem like there >>> is a consensus? >>> >>> --Chris >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> webkit-dev mailing list >> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org >> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev >> > _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
