RetroSearch Browse

Mon Dec 28 16:37:05 CET 2009 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-December/094711.html

>  > 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?

So, what you are saying is that software X specifies that it is
compatible with "2.5 or later" as long as 2.6 hasn't been released, but
when 2.6 is released it switches to "2.5 but not 2.6"?

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

That's not really what we are talking IIUC. We are talking about
behaviour of "2.5" vs. "2.5.0".

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-December/094711.html below:

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