> Guido van Rossum wrote: > >>>Perhaps we could have some kind of category for distutils > >>>packages which marks them as system add-ons vs. site add-ons. > >> > >>+1 -- this should definitely be up to the package author/packager, not > >>the local admin. I once tried to convince Guido that the ability to > >>occasionally upgrade standard library modules/packages would be a good > >>thing, but he wasn't having it. Any change of heart, O Mighty BDFL? > > > > > > Before I answer that, here's a question. Why do we think it's a good > > idea to distribute upgrades as separate add-ons while we don't think > > it's okay to distribute such upgrades with bugfix releases? [MAL] > The idea is to provide bugfixes for Python versions which are > no longer being maintained. Of course, the effect would only > show a few years ahead. Hm, if you really are fixing bugs in old versions, why not patch the Python installation in-place rather than trying to play nice? > > Doesn't > > this just increase the variability of site configurations, and hence > > version interaction hell? > > I don't think that core packages are any different than > other third party packages: they are usually independent > enough from the rest of the code that upgrades don't affect > the workings of the other code using it. The internals are > free to change, though, e.g. to accomodate bug fixes, etc. Well, I don't expect that we'll do independent upgrades for core packages, so I propose to end this thread. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4