RetroSearch Browse

Mon Dec 28 10:34:23 CET 2009 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-December/094687.html

Antoine Pitrou writes:
 > 
 > > And in fact this case is often more the important one.  Packages that
 > > depend on having a *recent* version of python will often crash
 > > quickly, before doing permanent damage, when an undefined syntax,
 > > function, or method is invoked, while packages that depend on a quirk
 > > in behavior of an older version will typically silently corrupt data.
 > 
 > How can they know that they depend on "a quirk in behaviour of an older
 > version" if a newer version hasn't been released? This sounds bogus.

Of course a newer version has been released.  Who said it hasn't been?
Eg, the discussion of <=2.5.  Hasn't 2.6 been released?  Or am I
hallucinating?

The point is that some packages depend on >=2.5, and others depend on
<=2.5.  I see no reason to deprecate the "<=" notation.

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-December/094687.html below:

[Python-Dev] Proposing PEP 345 : Metadata for Python Software Packages 1.2