[gentoo-python] On Python 2.5

[gentoo-python] On Python 2.5

[Johan Bergström]

Good day all,
with Python 2.4 being removed and all (anyone seen complaints about this, btw?),
I'd like to discuss the removal of Python 2.5.

Although 2.5 was one of those versions that started to be useful, I really see no
reason to just keep it around "just because".

Did a quick glance in the tree and couldn't find a package that only depended
on python:2.5 specifically. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The question is therefore: why keep python 2.5 in tree?

Regards,
--
Johan Bergström

Re: [gentoo-python] On Python 2.5

[Mike Gilbert]

2012/2/20 Johan Bergström <bugs@bergstroem.nu>:
> Good day all,
> with Python 2.4 being removed and all (anyone seen complaints about this, btw?),
> I'd like to discuss the removal of Python 2.5.
>
> Although 2.5 was one of those versions that started to be useful, I really see no
> reason to just keep it around "just because".
>
> Did a quick glance in the tree and couldn't find a package that only depended
> on python:2.5 specifically. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> The question is therefore: why keep python 2.5 in tree?
>
> Regards,
> --
> Johan Bergström
>
>

We might be making the upgrade path for ancient systems more
difficult. python-2.5 has EAPI=1 whereas python-2.6 has EAPI=2. I
don't feel this is a show stopper.

Re: [gentoo-python] On Python 2.5

[Matthew Summers]

On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 2012/2/20 Johan Bergström <bugs@bergstroem.nu>:
>> Good day all,
>> with Python 2.4 being removed and all (anyone seen complaints about this, btw?),
>> I'd like to discuss the removal of Python 2.5.
>>
>> Although 2.5 was one of those versions that started to be useful, I really see no
>> reason to just keep it around "just because".
>>
>> Did a quick glance in the tree and couldn't find a package that only depended
>> on python:2.5 specifically. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>>
>> The question is therefore: why keep python 2.5 in tree?
>>
>> Regards,
>> --
>> Johan Bergström
>>
>>
>
> We might be making the upgrade path for ancient systems more
> difficult. python-2.5 has EAPI=1 whereas python-2.6 has EAPI=2. I
> don't feel this is a show stopper.
>

It needs to stay at least until the baselayout 1 to 2 upgrade path is
still supported. I think that ends in June. I kinda like 2.5, its mmap
bits are better than newer versions, perhaps due to heavy patching.
sles and rhel5 still support it, maybe there are nice patches in those
repos.

</$0.02>
-- 
Matthew W. Summers
Gentoo Foundation Inc.

Re: [gentoo-python] On Python 2.5

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 07:13, Matthew Summers
<quantumsummers@gentoo.org> wrote:
> It needs to stay at least until the baselayout 1 to 2 upgrade path is
> still supported. I think that ends in June. I kinda like 2.5, its mmap
> bits are better than newer versions, perhaps due to heavy patching.
> sles and rhel5 still support it, maybe there are nice patches in those
> repos.

June-ish sounds about right to me.

Cheers,

Dirkjan

Re: [gentoo-python] On Python 2.5

[Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 826 bytes --]

Hi guys,

Im not confortable enough to remove 2.5 just yet. Python 2.4 was quite old
and didn't support much of the "modern" features, but thats not the case
with 2.5.

I think I know a lot of people still using 2.5 and just thinking about
upgrading.

Lets give it some more time...

Best regards,
On Feb 20, 2012 3:52 AM, "Dirkjan Ochtman" <djc@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 07:13, Matthew Summers
> <quantumsummers@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > It needs to stay at least until the baselayout 1 to 2 upgrade path is
> > still supported. I think that ends in June. I kinda like 2.5, its mmap
> > bits are better than newer versions, perhaps due to heavy patching.
> > sles and rhel5 still support it, maybe there are nice patches in those
> > repos.
>
> June-ish sounds about right to me.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dirkjan
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1213 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-python] On Python 2.5

[Sjujskij Nikolaj]

Den 2012-02-20 09:04:45 skrev Johan Bergström <bugs@bergstroem.nu>:

> Good day all,
> with Python 2.4 being removed and all (anyone seen complaints about  
> this, btw?),
> I'd like to discuss the removal of Python 2.5.
>
> Although 2.5 was one of those versions that started to be useful, I  
> really see no
> reason to just keep it around "just because".
>
> Did a quick glance in the tree and couldn't find a package that only  
> depended
> on python:2.5 specifically. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> The question is therefore: why keep python 2.5 in tree?

  There're quite a few people developing for Python 2.5 (for other target  
platforms) using Gentoo. Just as I know one guy who programs for RedHat  
(with Python 2.4) using Gentoo ~amd64.
Though I'm not developer, I hold that there's no call to remove old Python  
versions from tree: declare them unsupported, or mask, but don't remove  
until it's too burdensome.

Re: [gentoo-python] On Python 2.5

[Johan Bergström]

On Monday, 20 February 2012 at 6:44 PM, Sjujskij Nikolaj wrote:
> Den 2012-02-20 09:04:45 skrev Johan Bergström <bugs@bergstroem.nu (mailto:bugs@bergstroem.nu)>:
>  
> > Good day all,
> > with Python 2.4 being removed and all (anyone seen complaints about  
> > this, btw?),
> > I'd like to discuss the removal of Python 2.5.
> >  
> > Although 2.5 was one of those versions that started to be useful, I  
> > really see no
> > reason to just keep it around "just because".
> >  
> > Did a quick glance in the tree and couldn't find a package that only  
> > depended
> > on python:2.5 specifically. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> >  
> > The question is therefore: why keep python 2.5 in tree?
>  
> There're quite a few people developing for Python 2.5 (for other target  
> platforms) using Gentoo. Just as I know one guy who programs for RedHat  
> (with Python 2.4) using Gentoo ~amd64.
> Though I'm not developer, I hold that there's no call to remove old Python  
> versions from tree: declare them unsupported, or mask, but don't remove  
> until it's too burdensome.

This is one of the arguments also used for 2.4 (as you also state), which
now is gone. I would rather put similar ebuilds in a python overlay.

The way I see it, we have these "few people developing" vs us python
dev's, testing and building packages on a daily basis. 2.4 was starting
to be a real burden (I've seen 30+ package silently disregard 2.4) in
2011, and we'll most likely see the same thing happen for 2.5.
It might not be time to punt it yet, but it doesn't hurt to discuss
arguments until time's due.  

Cheers,
Johan

Re: [gentoo-python] On Python 2.5

[Nikolaj Sjujskij]

Den 2012-02-20 11:59:30 skrev Johan Bergström <bugs@bergstroem.nu>:

> On Monday, 20 February 2012 at 6:44 PM, Sjujskij Nikolaj wrote:
>> Den 2012-02-20 09:04:45 skrev Johan Bergström <bugs@bergstroem.nu  
>> (mailto:bugs@bergstroem.nu)>:
>>
>> > Good day all,
>> > with Python 2.4 being removed and all (anyone seen complaints about
>> > this, btw?),
>> > I'd like to discuss the removal of Python 2.5.
>> >
>> > Although 2.5 was one of those versions that started to be useful, I
>> > really see no
>> > reason to just keep it around "just because".
>> >
>> > Did a quick glance in the tree and couldn't find a package that only
>> > depended
>> > on python:2.5 specifically. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>> >
>> > The question is therefore: why keep python 2.5 in tree?
>>
>> There're quite a few people developing for Python 2.5 (for other target
>> platforms) using Gentoo. Just as I know one guy who programs for RedHat
>> (with Python 2.4) using Gentoo ~amd64.
>> Though I'm not developer, I hold that there's no call to remove old  
>> Python
>> versions from tree: declare them unsupported, or mask, but don't remove
>> until it's too burdensome.
>
> This is one of the arguments also used for 2.4 (as you also state), which
> now is gone. I would rather put similar ebuilds in a python overlay.
That'd be another solution, but in that case our devuser would have to
deal with all the other Python-related packages in python-overlay, mostly
of bleeding-edge persuasion, of fiddle with symlinks.
And Python 2.4 did not make way into python overlay anyway, and is nowhere
to be found nowadays (except gentoo-x86 cvs).

> The way I see it, we have these "few people developing" vs us python
> dev's, testing and building packages on a daily basis. 2.4 was starting
> to be a real burden (I've seen 30+ package silently disregard 2.4) in
> 2011, and we'll most likely see the same thing happen for 2.5.
Wouldn't solution "declare them unsupported and mask" deal with that kind
of thing? toolchain-herd still keeps GCC 2.95 in tree and it was
hard-masked even before I started using Gentoo. I seriously doubt anybody
really *supports* it, and compiling anything recent with 2.95 is a tough
job.

> It might not be time to punt it yet, but it doesn't hurt to discuss
> arguments until time's due.