X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.0 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,BOTNET,NO_DNS_FOR_FROM
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 14:34:31 -0500
From: Jason Tishler <jason AT tishler DOT net>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Python 2.6 ?
Message-id: <20100127193431.GA1332@tishler.net>
Mail-followup-to: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <4B5EADFB DOT 4010200 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net>  <20100126135611 DOT GA2212 AT tishler DOT net> <4B5F54D1 DOT 3080400 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-disposition: inline
In-reply-to: <4B5F54D1.3080400@users.sourceforge.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Yaakov,

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 02:47:13PM -0600, Yaakov (Cygwin/X) wrote:
> On 26/01/2010 07:56, Jason Tishler wrote:
> >Agreed, especially since the Python web site indicates the following:
> >
> >     The current production versions are Python 2.6.4 and Python
> >     3.1.1.
> 
> Which raises another point: 3.x are meant to be installed in parallel
> with 2.x (/usr/bin/python3 instead of /usr/bin/python, etc.).  So a
> separate python3 package might also be in order.

Agreed, but let's focus on the 2.5 to 2.6 (or 2.7) upgrade first.

> >[snip]
> >What do you propose?  Should I release a Python 2.6 as experimental,
> >use alternatives, or another approach?
> 
> [snip]
> So if we keep with only one 2.x version at a time, then 2.6.4 as
> experimental is probably the best bet, with a clear schedule to
> maintainers of when 2.6 will go stable so the transition has a chance
> of being smooth.

I prefer the above approach.  However, what happens if 2.7 is released
during the 2.5 to 2.6 transition period?

> If, OTOH, we start supporting 2.5, 2.6, and (soon) 2.7 simultaneously,
> then the packaging scheme for Python would need to significantly
> change.

I would like to avoid supporting multiple 2.x packages simultaneously.

> While you're at it, could you please include my ctypes patches:
> 
> http://cygwin-ports.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/cygwin-ports/ports/trunk/lang/python2.6/2.5.2-ctypes-util-find_library.patch
> http://cygwin-ports.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/cygwin-ports/ports/trunk/lang/python3/3.0rc3-ctypes-util-find_library.patch
> 
> This is critical for typical ctypes usage, where only a library name
> is given (e.g. PyOpenGL).  It means that the -devel package is
> required, but the same is true of the techniques used on Linux.

OK, but what do you mean by "the -devel package is required"?  After
reading the patch, I think you mean the binutils package.  Please
confirm.

> >BTW, is the threading workaround mentioned in the following post still
> >necessary?
> >
> >     http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2009-07/msg00831.html
> 
> Last time I checked, yes for both 2.6 and 3.1.

Bummers, now it is necessary for 3.x too. :,(

Thanks,
Jason

-- 
PGP/GPG Key: http://www.tishler.net/jason/pubkey.asc or key servers
Fingerprint: 7A73 1405 7F2B E669 C19D  8784 1AFD E4CC ECF4 8EF6

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple