On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 07:38:00AM -0500, Jeff Epler wrote: > On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 02:09:51PM +0200, Gregor Hoffleit wrote: > > Due to Python's good tradition of compatibility, this is the vast > > majority of packages; only packages with binary modules necessarily need > > to be recompiled anyway for each major new <version>. > Aren't there bytecode changes in 1.6, 2.0, and 2.1, compared to 1.5.2? If > so, this either means that each version of Python does need a separate copy > (for the .pyc/.pyo file), or if all versions are compatible with 1.5.2 > bytecodes (and I don't know that they are) then all packages would need to > be bytecompiled with 1.5.2. None are compatible. This might change, but I don't think so -- I think the CVS tree already has a different bytecode magic than 2.1, though I haven't checked. Perhaps what Gregor wants is a set of symlinks in each python version's site-packages directory, to a system-wide one, and a 'register-python-version' script like the emacs/xemacs stuff has that adds those symlinks. That way, the .pyc/.pyo versions would remain in the version-specific directory. -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
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