-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 We don't have any buildbot backing this system. OSF/1 last version was in 1994, was picked by Digital (Tru64 Unix). Last version of Tru64 was released in late 2006. Now Digital is owned by HP with its own Unix (HP-UX). Maybe we can drop OSF/1 safely supporting Tru64 yet, but we don't have any buildbot running any of this systems... Deprecated systems are documented in PEP-11. - -- Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ jcea@jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ jabber / xmpp:jcea@jabber.org _/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ . _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "Things are not so easy" _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "My name is Dump, Core Dump" _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQCVAwUBS9XT9Zlgi5GaxT1NAQJkVgP9G6mj+Cm3BoXrAYQQXqfGevGWQhwQENgI ONH2B4XzOQZv9JTorDcWjU9Onf7s3YJ0AZk5pBxuekDOoblFKEz0yU3X40HLhU3N 8dxJ6aRNYBpPLYFbJp2tuGb2rs/VpfuKPAlmKxcRKUvC7heyxokFyXJnnXy2i50r XnHYwfz5PG8= =SseK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Maybe we can drop OSF/1 safely supporting Tru64 yet, but we don't have any buildbot running any of this systems...
Dropping support is fine with me, in the long term. If PEP 11 is truly followed, we should deprecate support in one version, and drop it in the next one. This would mean we add a easy-to-remove configure error in 3.2, and remove the support in 3.3. Regards, Martin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 26/04/10 22:00, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
Maybe we can drop OSF/1 safely supporting Tru64 yet, but we don't have any buildbot running any of this systems...
Dropping support is fine with me, in the long term. If PEP 11 is truly followed, we should deprecate support in one version, and drop it in the next one. This would mean we add a easy-to-remove configure error in 3.2, and remove the support in 3.3.
Would be enough to raise an "ERROR" at configure time if OSF test is positive?. To delete that intentional "ERROR" would be trivial. In 3.3 I would remove the configure tests and the "#if" conditional compilation related to them. - -- Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ jcea@jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ jabber / xmpp:jcea@jabber.org _/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ . _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "Things are not so easy" _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "My name is Dump, Core Dump" _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQCVAwUBS95XyJlgi5GaxT1NAQLQLQP/cE2E27g8hSAbH7XzewDDYzx1AZ11ja55 xuR0PLTg/yQgE+4oifMa56Rs54YVRtRkh+i7B5yR5+lcI2DJgfqiu2Q9Of8KbwHp SQ2BVlshUmjhImWh486Qj6aQ9sF3xMdaxOGVLG+SJOBAEVw4UWEkZYPpQOuKRTfG K0SYYLhERoY= =CUNo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 06:57, Jesus Cea
Would be enough to raise an "ERROR" at configure time if OSF test is positive?. To delete that intentional "ERROR" would be trivial.
Oh really? I have no clue of how to do that. Doesn't like like a good deprecation to me. :) Is printing a warning not easily feasible in ./configure? -- Lennart Regebro: Python, Zope, Plone, Grok http://regebro.wordpress.com/ +33 661 58 14 64
Jesus Cea wrote:
On 26/04/10 22:00, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
Maybe we can drop OSF/1 safely supporting Tru64 yet, but we don't have any buildbot running any of this systems... Dropping support is fine with me, in the long term. If PEP 11 is truly followed, we should deprecate support in one version, and drop it in the next one. This would mean we add a easy-to-remove configure error in 3.2, and remove the support in 3.3.
Would be enough to raise an "ERROR" at configure time if OSF test is positive?. To delete that intentional "ERROR" would be trivial.
That's actually what the PEP suggests (or means to suggest). Users willing to take over maintenance would, at a minimum, know how to remove that error. If a user doesn't know how to remove it, they can ask for help, but more importantly, they probably consider it already unsupported - which is exactly the desired effect. Just to rephrase: the point of this deprecation cycle is to give users a chance to take over maintenance, and to declare, in public, that they are interested in that port. If nobody steps forward, we can safely assume that nobody cares. Regards, Martin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03/05/10 21:55, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
Just to rephrase: the point of this deprecation cycle is to give users a chance to take over maintenance, and to declare, in public, that they are interested in that port. If nobody steps forward, we can safely assume that nobody cares.
http://bugs.python.org/issue8606 . I will take care of the final cleanup in 3.3, if nobody stands up to keep OSF* alive. I am deprecating OSF*. If it is "too much", we can change it to "OSF1". - -- Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ jcea@jcea.es - http://www.jcea.es/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ jabber / xmpp:jcea@jabber.org _/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ . _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "Things are not so easy" _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "My name is Dump, Core Dump" _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/ "El amor es poner tu felicidad en la felicidad de otro" - Leibniz -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQCVAwUBS99CoJlgi5GaxT1NAQLSygQAiYD0UQAKl2vv1alwmMSP02AgHxN9e3Le bfMqysr2BE9fnG3WQlUKFn6pjbnnANFU2HRhTUJkaCNslewnUeg6pQ/s0xu321GL HQ6v6JHSOXxRoyyZ21Wq2ECNg+tYWGkM7Eohsif8XMjTeL0lP7ddYZSFaJbK0PfM BSK6DAV93/o= =nlYU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (4)
-
"Martin v. Löwis" -
Antoine Pitrou -
Jesus Cea -
Lennart Regebro