"Martin v. Loewis" wrote: > > > A more critical issue might be why people haven't adopted 2.0 yet; > > there seems little reason is there to continue using 1.5.2, yet I > > still see questions on the XML-SIG, for example, from people who > > haven't upgraded. Is it that Zope doesn't support it? Or that Red > > Hat and Debian don't include it? > > Availability of Linux binaries is certainly an issue. On xml-sig, one > Linux distributor (I forgot whether SuSE or Redhat) mentioned that > they won't include 2.0 in their current major release series (7.x for > both). > > Furthermore, the available 2.0 binaries won't work for either Redhat > 7.0 nor SuSE 7.0; I think collecting binaries as we did for earlier > releases is an important activity that was forgotten during 2.0. > > In addition, many packages are still not available for 2.0. Zope is > only one of them; gtk, Qt, etc packages are still struggling with > Unicode support. omniORBpy has #include <python15/Python.h> in their > sources, ILU does not compile on 2.0 (due to wrong tests involving the > PY_MAJOR/MINOR roll-over), Fnorb falls into the select.bind parameter > change pitfall. This list probably could be continued - I'm sure many > of the maintainers of these packages would appreciate a helping hand > from some Python Guru. Does this mean that doing CORBA et al. with Python 2.0 is currently not possible ? I will have a need for this starting this summer (along with SOAP and XML), so I'd be willing to help out. Who should I contact ? -- Marc-Andre Lemburg ______________________________________________________________________ Company: http://www.egenix.com/ Consulting: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/
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