Python versions (was Re: os.execl())

Sheila King sheila at spamcop.net
Mon Aug 27 19:54:08 CEST 2001


On 27 Aug 2001 10:29:44 -0700, aahz at panix.com (Aahz Maruch) wrote in
comp.lang.python in article <9me028$ecq$1 at panix2.panix.com>:

:In article <slrn9okse0.c6a.grante at grante.comtrol.com>,
:Grant Edwards <grante at visi.com> wrote:
:>
:>I didn't realize we were discussing 1.5.2.  I assume people are
:>using a fairly recent version unless they specify otherwise.
:>Under 2.1, spawnv is available for Unix. I don't remember if it
:>was in 2.0.
:
:Until Red Hat et al upgrade the default installation, I assume there's a
:good chance questions refer to 1.5.2.

I will second that. This is one of the primary reasons that my webhost
will not entertain upgrading the system Python to a more recent version.
He doesn't want to risk "breaking" something, and says that Python is
"built-in" to the system, somehow.

I had suggested that he provide a more recent version in a separate
directory, but in the end, I got to install the upgraded Python in my
own server space. (And it takes no small chunk of space, for those of us
on small, basic web hosting packages.)

This is one of the reasons that I've been trying to write my scripts so
that they will still run on 1.5.2. I imagine quite a few hosts out
there, who run RH out of the box will only be offering 1.5.2.

Plus, there is the whole thing, with some people not even wanting to
touch the RH 7.x. (I don't understand all the issues around this, but
the fact is that even if RH does update their Python in their install
routines, that some people don't even want to use the latest RH, for
some reason...)

--
Sheila King
http://www.thinkspot.net/sheila/
http://www.k12groups.org/




More information about the Python-list mailing list