[Distutils] backwards compatibility of distutils?

[M.-A. Lemburg]

Anthony Baxter wrote:
> When is it ok to lose the backward-compatibility of distutils? 
> Going through the code, there's at least two entire modules (log 
> and fancy_getopt) that should be removed in favour of the 
> new logging and optparse modules. Obviously this isn't possible 
> if 1.5.2 compatibility is to be kept.

Last time we discussed this the conclusion was that 1.5.2
compatibility is needed for 2.3 and we can then move
on to 2.0 compatibility for 2.4.

> Or should they be replaced with copies of the logging and optparse
> modules in the distutils CVS tree?

Not for 2.3, but perhaps for 2.4 if those modules are 2.0
compatible.

-- 
Marc-Andre Lemburg
eGenix.com

Professional Python Software directly from the Source  (#1, May 14 2003)
 >>> Python/Zope Products & Consulting ...         http://www.egenix.com/
 >>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ...        http://python.egenix.com/
________________________________________________________________________
EuroPython 2003, Charleroi, Belgium:                        41 days left