On Dec 02, 2010, at 11:21 PM, Martin v. Löwis wrote: >Well, the PEP 384 text in PEP 3149 specifies a change. It's not clear >whether this change was accepted when PEP 3149 was accepted, or whether >it was accepted when PEP 384 was accepted, or whether it was not >accepted at all, or whether it was just proposed. From my point of view, the PEP 3149 text is just a proposal. It leaves the final decision to PEP 384, but tries to address some of the issues raised during the PEP 3149 discussion. I think it is within PEP 384's scope to make the final decisions about it. >In any case, without the change, you won't naturally get extension >modules that use the abi3 tag proposed in 3149. I would favor changing distutils, if it can be done in a way that reasonably preserves backward compatibility. I suppose it's impossible to know all the ways 3rd party code has reached into distutils, but I think you can make fairly good judgements about whether a change is backward compatible or not. -Barry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20101202/3964c8ad/attachment.pgp>
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