Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes: > On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 08:43:54AM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote: >> I think it makes sense to drop python 2.4 right now. It seems the only >> reason anyone deals with it is that there is a culture of running >> particular ancient versions of Linux and only using the builtin python >> support (I find this totally boggling, but it's what I observe). > > I'm hesitant about this because the plone and zope packages seem to > need this version. Good point. I didn't think very clearly, so let me try again: plone and zope are issues, and we shouldn't drop python versions until we understand that situation and address it if plone and zope are fixed (updated to newer versions that use modern python, or perhaps we conclude that no one cares enough to maintain them and we remove them), then I don't see a reason to wait post branch. >> 2.5 does not feel so ancient and crufty that it should be summarily >> dismissed. > > On the other hand, in pkgsrc there is five packages that claim to work > with 25 and not with 26 or newer. That's not a critical mass :) But pkgsrc is about more than pkgsrc! By that, I mean that python25 in pkgsrc is useful for having python 2.5 for reasons other than running other packages in pkgsrc. In other words, I reject the assumption "the only value of non-leaf packages in pkgsrc is supporting leaf packages in pkgsrc". Again the question is whether you can tell someone running 2.5 that they are being lame and should have upgraded. Given how bad python is about compatibility, I can't sign on to that statement yet (even though I don't know anyone running 2.5). >> Some of these are probably candidates for removal on their own merits -- >> if they pass one of the tests "it's reasonable to tell users that they >> are lame for not having upgraded" or "it is unmaintained for so long >> (multiple years) that no reasonable person should still be using it". >> I suspect databases/gramps is an example of the first, and maybe gramps2 >> (but maybe not). > > We have gramps3 in pkgsrc, so I don't have problems with removing these two. > Thomas 'gramps3 is in pkgsrc' does not logically lead to 'people still running gramps2 can be told that they should have upgraded long ago'. (But that second statement may be true - my point is that evaluating the second statement is the real issue.) A quick check shows that 3.0.0 was released in 2008-03, so indeed it seems gramps2 is just cruft at this point.
Attachment:
pgpMULwdGuCPx.pgp
Description: PGP signature