skip@pobox.com schrieb:
>> All in all, I think providing binary compatibility would be feasible, >> and should be attempted. What do you think?
Neal> Let's assume that 2.4 is the first LSB version. The ABI is Neal> different for 2.4 and 2.5. We can't change the ABI for 2.5 since Neal> it's already released and our policy is to keep it constant.
It seems that adhering to LSB's constraints is going to create a new set of problems for Python development. It's unclear to me what LSB brings to Python other than a bunch of new headaches.
I won't try to defend it, but would suggest that an evaluation is deferred until it is clear what the actual problems are, and then to judge whether they are additional problems (or perhaps just a tightening of procedures which we had been following all along). In any case, having Python in the LSB means that ISVs (software vendors) who target LSB (rather than targetting specific Linux distributions) could develop their applications also in Python (whereas now they have to use C or C++). With not even Java being included, that would put Python into a unique position in that field (perhaps along with Perl, which is also targetted for LSB 3.2 - this wasn't discussed yesterday, basically because nobody from the Perl community was present). Regards, Martin