From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RWtXH-0002v9-EF for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2011 17:38:03 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8FDCBE00B5; Sat, 3 Dec 2011 17:38:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.domeneshop.no (smtp.domeneshop.no [194.63.248.54]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA2FAE00B5 for ; Sat, 3 Dec 2011 17:38:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from c80-216-54-24.bredband.comhem.se ([80.216.54.24] helo=me.local) by smtp.domeneshop.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RWtXD-00055F-Fr for gentoo-python@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2011 18:37:59 +0100 Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 18:37:57 +0100 From: =?utf-8?Q?Johan_Bergstr=C3=B6m?= To: gentoo-python@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4ED98C82.8090900@gentoo.org> References: <4ED98C82.8090900@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-python] Leaving 2.4 behind X-Mailer: sparrow 1.4.2 (build 959.4) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Discussions centering around the Python ecosystem in Gentoo Linux X-BeenThere: gentoo-python@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-python@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Archives-Salt: 63c259d1-dd16-459f-83d7-37d5b9911616 X-Archives-Hash: 916657cb66c1dcdb9a8087da18f3dd16 On 12/02/2011 09:05 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > Hi there, > > I feel it's about time to leave 2.4 behind. We've seen an uptick in > packages that don't support it anymore (making life harder for us if > we're trying to test for it), and at least some of our devs don't have > it installed anymore. In the wider ecosystem, as well, it seems like > other parties are also ending support for 2.4. I've seen this trend too. Stuff like with statements and conditional expressions is making 2.5 take 2.4's place as lowest req. > > Anyone opposed? Unless there are packages that explicitly need 2.4 I'm all for removing it. There's no point in having an older version around since it only adds maintenance when bumping packages. (Additionally, should there be a list of packages depending on 2.4 and nothing else - we should evaluate and act upon these). Thanks, Johan