On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Fred Drake <fdrake at acm.org> wrote: >> On Jul 17, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote: >>> >>> bsddb is in a very bad shape, as the 2.6 code hasn't been merged into >>> 3k. I somewhat doubt that this gets resolved before the release, so >>> bsddb users might need to skip 3.0. >> >> >> In fact, bsddb as packages in core Python has rarely been in good shape. >> >> Has anyone actually considered that bsddb might do better if maintained >> strictly as an external package? That would make it easier for the any >> maintainers to release updates, and removes a source of frustration for >> users who either don't need it or would rather wait for a happier version. >> >> I think this is worth considering. I vaguely recall that the bsddb module >> was maintained before it was incorporated into the core Python release. > > +1. In my recollection maintaining bsddb has been nothing but trouble > right from the start when we were all sitting together at "Zope Corp > North" in a rented office in McLean... We can remove it from 3.0. We > can't really remove it from 2.6, but we can certainly start > end-of-lifing it in 2.6. > Unless I hear otherwise, I will add it to PEP 3108. -Brett
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