[csw-maintainers] Python 2.7

Peter FELECAN pfelecan at opencsw.org
Thu Aug 1 17:34:08 CEST 2013

Yann Rouillard <yann at pleiades.fr.eu.org> writes:

> 2013/8/1 Peter FELECAN <pfelecan at opencsw.org>
>> Yann Rouillard <yann at pleiades.fr.eu.org> writes:
>> >
>> What people need to understand is that a 2.6 non binary module can be
>>  run by a 2.7 interpreter. The reverse is not always true. This is why I
>> proposed to replace 2.6 by 2.7 in our next transition from unstable to a
>> named catalog.
> I thought Maciej provided a counter-example with the range function where
> python 2.7 didn't run the code whereas python 2.6 worked. I may have missed
> something in this long thread, wasn't the example valid ?

The example referred to compiled code if my memory is good for something
in this hot weather...

BTW, we didn't decided on the delivery of .pyc and .pyo instead of
compiling them at installation time. And for this I'm sure that I
showed the proof.
>> This is not to be confused with the major incompatibilities between 2.x
>> and 3.x where using a different prefix is required.
> To keep thing consistent, I would prefer to have a CSWpy27- prefix if we
> have a CSWpy3- our CSWpy33- prefix.
> This way the user will not install a CSWpy- package while looking for a
> module for python 3.

First of all, the prefix is/should be CSWpy3 as Debian and tutti quanti.

Having a CSWpy26- and CSWpy27- prefix is redundantly ugly...

What about having CSWpy2- for the new packages being them 2.7 or
modulated for 2.6 and 2.7. The new packages will stub the previous
ones. This can be done by a scripted rebuild (easy to say, more manual
work intensive to do). Eventually we have a coherent, orthogonal
universe. Heh?

More information about the maintainers mailing list