Re: The looming Python 3(000) monster

[James Antill <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2008-12-05 at 15:09 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:

> IMHO the only viable option is to maintain both python 2.x and 3.x
> in parallel. It is essentially a brand new language which just
> happens to share the same base name. Like Perl 5 & Perl 6.

 It's much less like Perl-5/Perl-6, IMO, but even if you convince FESCo
of this mental contortion and you have dual sets of _every_ python
module. The API is very similar and uses the same shared library
name ... so what do you do about all the C programs that link with
libpython?

repoquery --whatrequires 'libpython2.5.so.*'

...are you going to offer two versions of rhythmbox?

-- 
James Antill <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fedora

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list