Zitat von Chris Jerdonek :

And for Python 2.7 when adding new tests

Hmm. Adding new tests to 2.7 is a questionable activity in the first place - it should be done very carefully.

does this mean we should write those tests in a way that attempts to have them pass on Tru64 (e.g. by following the pattern of another test), or should we not worry about it?

2.7 should absolutely be able to support Tru64 (even though it currently may not - that would be a bug). Any potential contributor to fix Tru64 support should find it "easy" to add fixes. So being cautious and following existing code sounds like a good idea. The world wouldn't end if the test broke on Tru64, though. Regards, Martin

On 09/04/2012 03:15 PM, martin@v.loewis.de wrote:

The world wouldn't end if the test broke on Tru64, though.

FWIW, HP drops support for Tru64 at the end of this year: http://h30097.www3.hp.com/tru64roadmap.pdf Of course, this doesn't directly imply Python should stop supporting it--IIRC Python's OS/2 support outlasted IBM's support by many years. //arry/

Zitat von Larry Hastings :

On 09/04/2012 03:15 PM, martin@v.loewis.de wrote:

...

The world wouldn't end if the test broke on Tru64, though.

FWIW, HP drops support for Tru64 at the end of this year:

http://h30097.www3.hp.com/tru64roadmap.pdf

Of course, this doesn't directly imply Python should stop supporting it--IIRC Python's OS/2 support outlasted IBM's support by many years.

It's perfectly fine (IMO) to drop support for Tru64. The main point of PEP 11 is that this shouldn't be done ad-hoc, but by giving users advance notice. So dropping support between bug fix releases is not ok (but unknowingly breaking test cases for some platform where we don't have a buildbot is ok, of course - whether the platform is little used or not). It's unfortunate that the presumed removal of Tru64 support in 3.0 didn't get recorded in PEP 11 (which may well be my fault as well); it's also unfortunate that it wasn't carried out completely, so that it's now not clear whether it was carried out at all. If 3.0 wouldn't have worked at all on Tru64 already, removing the remains would be a bug fix. If the removal was only documented but not implemented, support wasn't actually removed, so users may not have received the advance warning that configure should have spit out, in which case removal in 3.4 may appear ad-hoc to them. In any case, it appears that nobody ever announced removal of Tru64 support for 2.x, which means that it continues to be supported - except that it may not actually work. But if so, we should accept bug fixes that claim to restore support. Regards, Martin

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:

I don't think so. If some hypothetical Tru64 user cares, they can probably open a bug on the tracker.

Thanks. -- Thanks, Andrew Svetlov

On 9/4/2012 9:00 AM, Andrew Svetlov wrote:

Aha, ./Doc/whatsnew/3.0.rst declares dropping support for Tru64. Several files in repo mention it, though.

That suggests that it should be added to PEP11. Martin is the PEP editor, so I guess it is his final decision. -- Terry Jan Reedy

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:19:38 +0300, Andrew Svetlov wrote:

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:

...

I don't think so. If some hypothetical Tru64 user cares, they can probably open a bug on the tracker.

Thanks.

I used to work on Tru64 systems many years ago. According to the pages on HP's site (http://h30097.www3.hp.com/) that Google found me (HP acquired the Alpha platform that Tru64 runs on, among other things), the Alpha itself was discontinued in 2007, and Tru64 has reached the end of "Mature Product Support with Sustaining Engineering" this year. From this point on it is just "Mature Product Support". Not sure exactly what that means, other than that Tru64 is definitely a dying platform. --David

Zitat von Trent Nelson :

OpenVMS is an interesting one though; it's still actively supported by HP on Itanium. I've got an Itanium earmarked marked for OpenVMS "for an even rainier day", but I wouldn't know OpenVMS is it smacked me in the head, so, not a high priority at the moment.

We had an offer several months ago that patches to 3.3 would "likely" (IIRC) be contributed; this didn't materialize. So the PEP 11 removal of VMS support stands. Regards, Martin