From sacadmin Fri Aug 22 11:32:37 2008 Received: from sr1-umpk-16.sfbay.sun.com (sr1-umpk-16.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.154.66]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7MIWbnp007245; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:32:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sr1-umpk-16.sfbay.sun.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sr1-umpk-16.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7MIWbq8040438; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:32:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from johnf@localhost) by sr1-umpk-16.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/Submit) id m7MIWbIL040434; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:32:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:32:37 -0700 (PDT) From: John Fischer Message-Id: <200808221832.m7MIWbIL040434@sr1-umpk-16.sfbay.sun.com> To: PSARC-record@sac.sfbay.sun.com Cc: laszlo.peter@Sun.Com Subject: Python 2.5 for Solaris [PSARC/2008/543 FastTrack timeout 08/29/2008] Status: RO Content-Length: 568 Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.66 04/17/08 SMI This information is Copyright 2008 Sun Microsystems 1. Introduction 1.1. Project/Component Working Name: Python 2.5 for Solaris 1.2. Name of Document Author/Supplier: Author: Laszlo Peter 1.3 Date of This Document: 22 August, 2008 4. Technical Description See the case directory for more detail 6. Resources and Schedule 6.4. Steering Committee requested information 6.4.1. Consolidation C-team Name: Desktop - JDS 6.5. ARC review type: FastTrack 6.6. ARC Exposure: open From John.Fischer@sun.com Fri Aug 22 11:40:41 2008 Received: from newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (newsunmail1brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.62.245]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7MIeemj007336 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:40:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m7MIedwQ041623 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:PSARC-ext@sun.com>; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:40:40 -0600 (MDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6000227MJRSU00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:40:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.98.31]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6000F80MJQQ870@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:40:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m7MIecKm009967 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:40:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6000101LA1FD00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from John.Fischer@Sun.COM) for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:40:38 -0600 (MDT) Received: from 129.145.154.66 ([129.145.154.66]) by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6000L7PMJGSVF0@mail-amer.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:40:29 -0600 (MDT) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:40:28 -0700 From: John Fischer Subject: PSARC/2008/543 - Python 2.5 Sender: John.Fischer@sun.com To: PSARC-ext@sun.com Cc: John Fischer , Laszlo Peter Reply-to: John.Fischer@sun.com Message-id: <1219430428.9503.114.camel@sr1-umpk-16> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6.301 Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Boundary_(ID_czzlny8JRQL2qahNJ5VIoA)" X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 Status: RO Content-Length: 4894 --Boundary_(ID_czzlny8JRQL2qahNJ5VIoA) Content-type: text/plain Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT All, I am sponsoring this fast track for Laszlo (Laca) Peter from the JDS Desktop team. The case directory contains this proposal. I have set the timeout for Friday, August 29th, 2008. The project proposes to integrate Python 2.5 into a Patch release of Solaris. Python 2.5 and Python 2.4 will coexist on the system. The symbolic link pointing to the most recent version of python will be updated to point to Python 2.5. Thanks, John --Boundary_(ID_czzlny8JRQL2qahNJ5VIoA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=ASCII; name=proposal.txt Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: attachment; filename=proposal.txt Title: Python 2.5 for Solaris Case: PSARC/2008/543 Submitter: Laszlo Peter Owner: John Fischer Timeout: 08/29/2008 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Project/Component Working Name: Python 2.5 for Solaris 1.2 Purpose This project delivers Python 2.5 into Solaris. Python 2.4 remains in Nevada and is upgraded to Uncommitted. It also introduces the isapython2.x executable, which invokes the python2.x executable that best matches the ISA of the running system, using isaexec. Release binding: Patch 2.0 Description Python 2.5 is not fully compatible with Python 2.4, therefore both versions need to be shipped. This is a common practice in Linux distributions as well. Python 2.4 and Python 2.5 are parallel installable, the only namespace clash is /usr/bin/python which becomes a convenience symlink to the latest version of Python. Note: /usr/bin/python currently points to python2.4. Python scripts delivered to Solaris must call the required version explicitely, not the /usr/bin/python convenience symlink: #!/usr/bin/python2.4 or #!/usr/bin/python2.5 The isapython2.x executable can be used to invoke the Python2.x interpreter that best matches the instruction set architecture of the running system. isapython2.x is specific to the [Open]Solaris implementation of Python. Projects delivering Python modules are advised to deliver them for both Python 2.4 and Python 2.5. Projects delivering shared object Python modules are advised to deliver both 32 and 64-bit versions, as per PSARC/2006/666 2.2 Imported Interfaces The Python library/interpreter itself only uses system libraries. The various Python modules included in the SUNWPython25 package import the following interfaces: Python module Interface Classification -------------------------- ------------------ ---------------- ssl OpenSSL Volatile tkinter Tcl/Tk Uncommitted bz2 libbz2 Committed pyexpat libexpat Volatile zlib libz Committed ctypes libffi Volatile 2.3 Exported Interfaces Interface Classification Comments ----------------------------- -------------- ---------------------- /usr/bin/python Volatile Convenience symlink that points to the most recent version of Python /usr/bin/$MACH64/python Volatile Convenience symlink to the most recent version of the 64-bit Python interpreter /usr/bin/python2.4 Uncommitted Python 2.4.x interpreter (32-bit) /usr/bin/python2.5 Uncommitted Python 2.5.y interpreter (32-bit) /usr/bin/$MACH64/python2.4 Uncommitted Python 2.4.x interpreter (64-bit) /usr/bin/$MACH64/python2.5 Uncommitted Python 2.5.y interpreter (64-bit) /usr/bin/isapython2.4 Uncommitted isaexec'd python2.4 /usr/bin/isapython2.5 Uncommitted isaexec'd python2.5 /usr/lib/python2.4 Uncommitted base directory for Python 2.4 modules /usr/lib/python2.4/vendor-packages directory for Python 2.4 Uncommitted modules shipped by Sun see PSARC/2006/666 /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages directory for Python 2.4 Volatile modules installed locally by the sysadmin /usr/lib/python2.5 Uncommitted base directory for Python 2.5 modules /usr/lib/python2.5/vendor-packages directory for Python 2.5 Uncommitted modules shipped by Sun see PSARC/2006/666 /usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages directory for Python 2.5 Volatile modules installed locally by the sysadmin --Boundary_(ID_czzlny8JRQL2qahNJ5VIoA)-- From gdamore@sun.com Fri Aug 22 12:21:10 2008 Received: from sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail2sca.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.234]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7MJLAWY008396 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:21:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m7MJL8VI014493 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:PSARC-ext@sun.com>; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:21:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6000L0JOF9HB00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:21:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.43.132]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6000C9FOF9QND0@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:21:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-09.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m7MJL9xk019329 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:21:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-09.sun.com by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6000M01OAQ4S00@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> (original mail from gdamore@sun.com) for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:21:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.7.251.172] by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6000ABUOF70XF0@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:21:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:14:41 -0700 From: "Garrett D'Amore" Subject: Re: PSARC/2008/543 - Python 2.5 In-reply-to: <1219430428.9503.114.camel@sr1-umpk-16> Sender: Garrett.Damore@sun.com To: John.Fischer@sun.com Cc: PSARC-ext@sun.com, Laszlo Peter Message-id: <48AF1021.8030201@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <1219430428.9503.114.camel@sr1-umpk-16> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080616) Status: RO Content-Length: 1540 John Fischer wrote: > All, > > I am sponsoring this fast track for Laszlo (Laca) Peter from > the JDS Desktop team. The case directory contains this proposal. > I have set the timeout for Friday, August 29th, 2008. > > The project proposes to integrate Python 2.5 into a Patch release > of Solaris. Python 2.5 and Python 2.4 will coexist on the system. > The symbolic link pointing to the most recent version of python will > be updated to point to Python 2.5. > > Thanks, > > John > > Questions: 1) Does Python versioning "make sense" here? I.e. is Python 2.5 largely compatible with 2.4, and is it the case that developers should start using the new version? (Put another way, is there any reason that developers should be building new programs against 2.4 after 2.5 integrates?) 2) Assuming that there are no surprises in the question above, wouldn't it make more sense to upgrade 2.4 to "Uncommitted Obsolete" instead of "Uncommitted"? (I.e. discourage new users from using 2.4 and direct them to 2.5 instead.) 3) Is the project planning to undertake an effort to upgrade any Python 2.4 dependents delivered by OpenSolaris to Python 2.5? (Either as part of this project, or as part of a follow on effort?) Thanks. (FWIW, I think its unlikely that any answers to any of the questions are going to negatively affect any decision to deliver Python 2.5. I'm more interested in what happens to Python 2.4, and what precedent we might be setting, if any, when Python 2.6, 2.7... etc. comes out.) -- Garrett From danek.duvall@sun.com Fri Aug 22 17:14:45 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7N0Eiea018827 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:14:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m7N0EZlU018994 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:PSARC-ext@sun.com>; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 08:14:43 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6100H0320IKN00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:14:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dm-sfbay-01.sfbay.sun.com ([129.145.155.118]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6100GG620IXCB0@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:14:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mumak.SFBay.Sun.COM (mumak.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.229.4]) by dm-sfbay-01.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m7N0Ef7c025992; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:14:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mumak.SFBay.Sun.COM (mumak [127.0.0.1]) by mumak.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id m7N0Fgul026445; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dduvall@localhost) by mumak.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id m7N0FgKH026444; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:15:42 -0700 From: Danek Duvall Subject: Re: PSARC/2008/543 - Python 2.5 In-reply-to: <1219430428.9503.114.camel@sr1-umpk-16> To: John Fischer Cc: PSARC-ext@sun.com, Laszlo Peter Message-id: <20080823001542.GH15226@mumak.SFBay.Sun.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <1219430428.9503.114.camel@sr1-umpk-16> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-27) Status: RO Content-Length: 1041 Given that Python 2.6 just hit its final beta, wouldn't it make sense to target that instead? Or is 2.5 all ready to go pending this ARC case, while 2.6 would take another couple months to wait for release, complete testing, etc? > Projects delivering Python modules are advised to deliver them > for both Python 2.4 and Python 2.5. Is there a requirement to deliver them for one version or the other? If "both" is merely advisory, then one team may deliver for one version, another for the other version, and anyone wanting to use those modules will be unable to use both. Perhaps there should be a requirement for 2.5 modules? Or just make both required for the time being? > Projects delivering shared object Python modules are advised to > deliver both 32 and 64-bit versions, as per PSARC/2006/666 Same issue here, too. Though the way this is worded suggests that the word "shared" is missing from the 2.4/2.5 paragraph. Projects delivering Project Private modules can presumably do whatever they want. Danek From Laszlo.Peter@sun.com Fri Aug 22 21:41:36 2008 Received: from sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (sunmail4.Singapore.Sun.COM [129.158.71.19]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7N4fZmv028399 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:41:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail4.singapore.sun.com (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m7N4fX2U026344 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:PSARC-ext@sun.com>; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:41:34 +0800 (SGT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6100103ED9SW00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:41:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gmp-eb-inf-1.sun.com ([192.18.6.21]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6100HB3ED8NKC0@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:41:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-emea-10.sun.com (gmp-eb-lb-2-fe2.eu.sun.com [192.18.6.11]) by gmp-eb-inf-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m7N4fWXW021461 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 04:41:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-emea-10.sun.com by fe-emea-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6100001DVYZM00@fe-emea-10.sun.com> (original mail from Laszlo.Peter@Sun.COM) for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Sat, 23 Aug 2008 05:41:32 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([60.234.117.94]) by fe-emea-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6100GJIED1MCC0@fe-emea-10.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Sat, 23 Aug 2008 05:41:29 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 16:41:23 +1200 From: "Laszlo (Laca) Peter" Subject: Re: PSARC/2008/543 - Python 2.5 In-reply-to: <48AF1021.8030201@sun.com> Sender: Laszlo.Peter@sun.com To: "Garrett D'Amore" Cc: John.Fischer@sun.com, PSARC-ext@sun.com Reply-to: laca@sun.com Message-id: <1219466483.757.27.camel@tecra> Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.2 Content-type: text/plain Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <1219430428.9503.114.camel@sr1-umpk-16> <48AF1021.8030201@sun.com> Status: RO Content-Length: 1954 On Fri, 2008-08-22 at 12:14 -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > 1) Does Python versioning "make sense" here? I.e. is Python 2.5 largely > compatible with 2.4, and is it the case that developers should start > using the new version? (Put another way, is there any reason that > developers should be building new programs against 2.4 after 2.5 > integrates?) Yes. Python itself comes with a large number of modules, however there are a lot of extra modules and bindings that we add on top. For example libxml2-python, wrappers for most the GNOME libraries, etc. It will take time to make all these modules available for both 2.4 and 2.5. At that point existing python programs can all move to 2.5 and 2.4 can be phased out. > 2) Assuming that there are no surprises in the question above, wouldn't > it make more sense to upgrade 2.4 to "Uncommitted Obsolete" instead of > "Uncommitted"? (I.e. discourage new users from using 2.4 and direct > them to 2.5 instead.) It should be made Obsolete when all extra Python are delivered for Python 2.5. I expect that to happen around the time the Python 2.6 case is submitted (2.6 is currently in beta). > 3) Is the project planning to undertake an effort to upgrade any Python > 2.4 dependents delivered by OpenSolaris to Python 2.5? (Either as part > of this project, or as part of a follow on effort?) Yes, as a follow-on effort. > Thanks. (FWIW, I think its unlikely that any answers to any of the > questions are going to negatively affect any decision to deliver Python > 2.5. I'm more interested in what happens to Python 2.4, and what > precedent we might be setting, if any, when Python 2.6, 2.7... etc. > comes out.) We actually have a precedent: we moved from 2.3 to 2.4 in the past. S10 GA had 2.3. It now delivers both 2.3 and 2.4, 2.3 was declared Obsolete when 2.4 integrated and then 2.3 was removed from Nevada. We are going to follow a similar pattern. Thanks, Laca From Laszlo.Peter@sun.com Fri Aug 22 21:49:29 2008 Received: from newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (newsunmail1brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.62.245]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7N4nT5b028781 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:49:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m7N4nS6F040175 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:PSARC-ext@sun.com>; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:49:28 -0600 (MDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6100203EQGN300@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:49:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gmp-eb-inf-1.sun.com ([192.18.6.21]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K610024IEQF9KF0@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 21:49:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-emea-10.sun.com (gmp-eb-lb-2-fe2.eu.sun.com [192.18.6.11]) by gmp-eb-inf-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m7N4nRdC021529 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 04:49:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-emea-10.sun.com by fe-emea-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6100301EH45400@fe-emea-10.sun.com> (original mail from Laszlo.Peter@Sun.COM) for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Sat, 23 Aug 2008 05:49:27 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([60.234.117.94]) by fe-emea-10.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6100GX9EQBMCC0@fe-emea-10.sun.com>; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 05:49:26 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 16:49:21 +1200 From: "Laszlo (Laca) Peter" Subject: Re: PSARC/2008/543 - Python 2.5 In-reply-to: <20080823001542.GH15226@mumak.SFBay.Sun.COM> Sender: Laszlo.Peter@sun.com To: Danek Duvall Cc: John Fischer , PSARC-ext@sun.com Reply-to: laca@sun.com Message-id: <1219466961.757.36.camel@tecra> Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.2 Content-type: text/plain Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <1219430428.9503.114.camel@sr1-umpk-16> <20080823001542.GH15226@mumak.SFBay.Sun.COM> Status: RO Content-Length: 1777 On Fri, 2008-08-22 at 17:15 -0700, Danek Duvall wrote: > Given that Python 2.6 just hit its final beta, wouldn't it make sense to > target that instead? Or is 2.5 all ready to go pending this ARC case, > while 2.6 would take another couple months to wait for release, complete > testing, etc? That's exactly the case. 2.5 is read to go and can be integrated into [Open]Solaris in time for the next OpenSolaris release. I haven't started to port all the source patches to 2.6 yet. > > Projects delivering Python modules are advised to deliver them > > for both Python 2.4 and Python 2.5. > > Is there a requirement to deliver them for one version or the other? If > "both" is merely advisory, then one team may deliver for one version, > another for the other version, and anyone wanting to use those modules will > be unable to use both. > > Perhaps there should be a requirement for 2.5 modules? Or just make both > required for the time being? That would make sense, at least until 2.4 is Obsolete, but I'm not sure how to enforce it. For the modules delivered by the Desktop team (probably most of them), I'll make sure they are delivered for both versions. > > Projects delivering shared object Python modules are advised to > > deliver both 32 and 64-bit versions, as per PSARC/2006/666 > > Same issue here, too. Though the way this is worded suggests that the word > "shared" is missing from the 2.4/2.5 paragraph. This is a bit different issue. Essentially, all Python modules should have 4 variants: 2.4 32-bit, 2.5 32-bit, 2.4 64-bit, 2.5 64-bit. (In the case of pure python modules the ISA doesn't matter.) > Projects delivering > Project Private modules can presumably do whatever they want. Right. Thanks for the comments, Laca From gdamore@sun.com Fri Aug 22 23:42:16 2008 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7N6gFmx001975 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:42:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m7N6gAPb000259 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:PSARC-ext@sun.com>; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 07:42:14 +0100 (BST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6100E03JYCXN00@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:42:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sca-es-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.43.133]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6100AW2JYCCL20@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:42:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-sfbay-09.sun.com ([192.18.43.129]) by sca-es-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m7N6gCba003269 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:42:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-sfbay-09.sun.com by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6100I01JXEG200@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> (original mail from gdamore@sun.com) for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:42:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.7.251.172] by fe-sfbay-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6100EC4JYBTM10@fe-sfbay-09.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:42:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:35:43 -0700 From: "Garrett D'Amore" Subject: Re: PSARC/2008/543 - Python 2.5 In-reply-to: <1219466483.757.27.camel@tecra> Sender: Garrett.Damore@sun.com To: laca@sun.com Cc: John.Fischer@sun.com, PSARC-ext@sun.com Message-id: <48AFAFBF.9030501@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <1219430428.9503.114.camel@sr1-umpk-16> <48AF1021.8030201@sun.com> <1219466483.757.27.camel@tecra> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080616) Status: RO Content-Length: 2486 Thanks for the clarifications. So will we see extra ARC cases for the extras as they update to 2.5? (In my opinion, it would be nice to just grant a blanket case approving such an upgrade ahead of schedule, with cases only required when incompatibilities are introduced. I'm not sure any mechanism exists to do that, but I guess self-review cases could be used.) - Garrett Laszlo (Laca) Peter wrote: > On Fri, 2008-08-22 at 12:14 -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > >> 1) Does Python versioning "make sense" here? I.e. is Python 2.5 largely >> compatible with 2.4, and is it the case that developers should start >> using the new version? (Put another way, is there any reason that >> developers should be building new programs against 2.4 after 2.5 >> integrates?) >> > > Yes. Python itself comes with a large number of modules, however > there are a lot of extra modules and bindings that we add on top. > For example libxml2-python, wrappers for most the GNOME libraries, > etc. It will take time to make all these modules available for > both 2.4 and 2.5. At that point existing python programs can > all move to 2.5 and 2.4 can be phased out. > > >> 2) Assuming that there are no surprises in the question above, wouldn't >> it make more sense to upgrade 2.4 to "Uncommitted Obsolete" instead of >> "Uncommitted"? (I.e. discourage new users from using 2.4 and direct >> them to 2.5 instead.) >> > > It should be made Obsolete when all extra Python are delivered > for Python 2.5. I expect that to happen around the time the > Python 2.6 case is submitted (2.6 is currently in beta). > > >> 3) Is the project planning to undertake an effort to upgrade any Python >> 2.4 dependents delivered by OpenSolaris to Python 2.5? (Either as part >> of this project, or as part of a follow on effort?) >> > > Yes, as a follow-on effort. > > >> Thanks. (FWIW, I think its unlikely that any answers to any of the >> questions are going to negatively affect any decision to deliver Python >> 2.5. I'm more interested in what happens to Python 2.4, and what >> precedent we might be setting, if any, when Python 2.6, 2.7... etc. >> comes out.) >> > > We actually have a precedent: we moved from 2.3 to 2.4 in the past. > S10 GA had 2.3. It now delivers both 2.3 and 2.4, 2.3 was declared > Obsolete when 2.4 integrated and then 2.3 was removed from Nevada. > We are going to follow a similar pattern. > > Thanks, > Laca > > > From Laszlo.Peter@Sun.COM Fri Aug 22 23:51:14 2008 Received: from sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail3mpk.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.52]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7N6pEvM002327 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:51:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (nwk-avmta-2.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.145.155.6]) by sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m7N6pE0h012205 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:PSARC-ext@sun.com>; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:51:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6100801KCTAN00@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:50:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gmp-eb-inf-1.sun.com ([192.18.6.21]) by nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K61002BJKCSSRA0@nwk-avmta-2.sfbay.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:50:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-emea-09.sun.com (gmp-eb-lb-2-fe2.eu.sun.com [192.18.6.11]) by gmp-eb-inf-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m7N6oqid023234 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:50:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-emea-09.sun.com by fe-emea-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6100F01K5PIH00@fe-emea-09.sun.com> (original mail from Laszlo.Peter@Sun.COM) for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Sat, 23 Aug 2008 07:50:52 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([60.234.117.94]) by fe-emea-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K61004LPKCPSQB0@fe-emea-09.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Sat, 23 Aug 2008 07:50:52 +0100 (BST) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:50:46 +1200 From: "Laszlo (Laca) Peter" Subject: Re: PSARC/2008/543 - Python 2.5 In-reply-to: <48AFAFBF.9030501@sun.com> Sender: Laszlo.Peter@Sun.COM To: "Garrett D'Amore" Cc: John.Fischer@Sun.COM, PSARC-ext@Sun.COM Reply-to: laca@Sun.COM Message-id: <1219474246.757.47.camel@tecra> Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.2 Content-type: text/plain Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <1219430428.9503.114.camel@sr1-umpk-16> <48AF1021.8030201@sun.com> <1219466483.757.27.camel@tecra> <48AFAFBF.9030501@sun.com> Status: RO Content-Length: 515 On Fri, 2008-08-22 at 23:35 -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > So will we see extra ARC cases for the extras as they update to 2.5? > (In my opinion, it would be nice to just grant a blanket case approving > such an upgrade ahead of schedule, with cases only required when > incompatibilities are introduced. I'm not sure any mechanism exists to > do that, but I guess self-review cases could be used.) I agree. Self-reviews with automatic approval should do, just so that the changes are recorded. Laca From danek.duvall@sun.com Sat Aug 23 00:28:23 2008 Received: from sunmail5.uk.sun.com (sunmail5.UK.Sun.COM [129.156.85.165]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7N7SM5Z004117 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:28:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail5.uk.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m7N7SKs5011414; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 08:28:21 +0100 (BST) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6100905M38AG00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com>; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 01:28:20 -0600 (MDT) Received: from dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com ([129.146.11.31]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6100AU6M37HNC0@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com>; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 01:28:19 -0600 (MDT) Received: from mumak.SFBay.Sun.COM (mumak.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.229.4]) by dm-sfbay-02.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m7N7SIIN038669; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:28:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mumak.SFBay.Sun.COM (mumak [127.0.0.1]) by mumak.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id m7N7TJoS026863; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:29:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from dduvall@localhost) by mumak.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id m7N7TJif026862; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:29:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:29:18 -0700 From: Danek Duvall Subject: Re: PSARC/2008/543 - Python 2.5 In-reply-to: <1219466961.757.36.camel@tecra> To: laca@sun.com Cc: John Fischer , PSARC-ext@sun.com Message-id: <20080823072918.GM15226@mumak.SFBay.Sun.COM> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <1219430428.9503.114.camel@sr1-umpk-16> <20080823001542.GH15226@mumak.SFBay.Sun.COM> <1219466961.757.36.camel@tecra> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-27) Status: RO Content-Length: 603 On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 04:49:21PM +1200, Laszlo (Laca) Peter wrote: > > Perhaps there should be a requirement for 2.5 modules? Or just make > > both required for the time being? > > That would make sense, at least until 2.4 is Obsolete, but I'm not > sure how to enforce it. By stating that requirement in this case, setting a precedent that future cases will have to follow. Enforcement will be up to the ARC (to point the rule out to teams that might not have gotten the message) and the c-teams (to make sure that they don't actually integrate without having support for both versions). Danek From Laszlo.Peter@sun.com Sat Aug 23 20:11:31 2008 Received: from sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (sunmail3mpk.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.52]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7O3BVLG007896 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 20:11:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (brm-avmta-1.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.4.11]) by sunmail3mpk.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m7O3BUaJ028859 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:PSARC-ext@sun.com>; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 20:11:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K63009054V6IO00@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:11:30 -0600 (MDT) Received: from gmp-eb-inf-1.sun.com ([192.18.6.21]) by brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K630036R4V5QG40@brm-avmta-1.central.sun.com> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Sat, 23 Aug 2008 21:11:30 -0600 (MDT) Received: from fe-emea-09.sun.com (gmp-eb-lb-2-fe2.eu.sun.com [192.18.6.11]) by gmp-eb-inf-1.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m7O3BT9v011243 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 03:11:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.fe-emea-09.sun.com by fe-emea-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K63006014RTEP00@fe-emea-09.sun.com> (original mail from Laszlo.Peter@Sun.COM) for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Sun, 24 Aug 2008 04:11:29 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([60.234.117.94]) by fe-emea-09.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6300MNR4V20J30@fe-emea-09.sun.com>; Sun, 24 Aug 2008 04:11:29 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 15:11:25 +1200 From: "Laszlo (Laca) Peter" Subject: Re: PSARC/2008/543 - Python 2.5 In-reply-to: <20080823072918.GM15226@mumak.SFBay.Sun.COM> Sender: Laszlo.Peter@sun.com To: Danek Duvall Cc: John Fischer , PSARC-ext@sun.com Reply-to: laca@sun.com Message-id: <1219547485.799.16.camel@tecra> Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.2 Content-type: text/plain Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <1219430428.9503.114.camel@sr1-umpk-16> <20080823001542.GH15226@mumak.SFBay.Sun.COM> <1219466961.757.36.camel@tecra> <20080823072918.GM15226@mumak.SFBay.Sun.COM> Status: RO Content-Length: 790 On Sat, 2008-08-23 at 00:29 -0700, Danek Duvall wrote: > > > Perhaps there should be a requirement for 2.5 modules? Or just make > > > both required for the time being? > > > > That would make sense, at least until 2.4 is Obsolete, but I'm not > > sure how to enforce it. > > By stating that requirement in this case, setting a precedent that future > cases will have to follow. Enforcement will be up to the ARC (to point the > rule out to teams that might not have gotten the message) and the c-teams > (to make sure that they don't actually integrate without having support for > both versions). Okay, I'll update the proposal to state that it is a requirement to deliver python modules for both (or all) versions of python and also 32-bit and 64-bit variants if applicable. Laca From John.Fischer@sun.com Wed Aug 27 10:07:02 2008 Received: from newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (newsunmail1brm.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.62.245]) by sac.sfbay.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7RH71Yj014389 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:07:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM (nwk-avmta-1.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.11.74]) by newsunmail1brm.central.sun.com (8.13.7+Sun/8.13.7/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id m7RH6vM6024213 for <@sunmail2sca.sfbay.sun.com:PSARC-ext@sun.com>; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:06:59 -0600 (MDT) Received: from pmxchannel-daemon.nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) id <0K6900311RJL7800@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:06:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.98.43]) by nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-3.04 (built Jul 15 2005)) with ESMTP id <0K6900DQNRJJ3B90@nwk-avmta-1.sfbay.Sun.COM> for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:06:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fe-amer-10.sun.com ([192.18.109.80]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id m7RH6t66008184 for ; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:06:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from conversion-daemon.mail-amer.sun.com by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) id <0K6900601QD81I00@mail-amer.sun.com> (original mail from John.Fischer@Sun.COM) for PSARC-ext@sun.com (ORCPT PSARC-ext@sun.com); Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:06:55 -0600 (MDT) Received: from 129.145.154.66 ([129.145.154.66]) by mail-amer.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-8.04 (built Feb 28 2007)) with ESMTPSA id <0K6900KWHRJCALG0@mail-amer.sun.com>; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:06:49 -0600 (MDT) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:06:48 -0700 From: John Fischer Subject: Re: PSARC/2008/543 - Python 2.5 In-reply-to: <1219547485.799.16.camel@tecra> Sender: John.Fischer@sun.com To: laca@sun.com Cc: John Fischer , Danek Duvall , PSARC-ext@sun.com Reply-to: John.Fischer@sun.com Message-id: <1219856808.51279.127.camel@sr1-umpk-16> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6.301 Content-type: text/plain Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-PMX-Version: 5.4.1.325704 References: <1219430428.9503.114.camel@sr1-umpk-16> <20080823001542.GH15226@mumak.SFBay.Sun.COM> <1219466961.757.36.camel@tecra> <20080823072918.GM15226@mumak.SFBay.Sun.COM> <1219547485.799.16.camel@tecra> Status: RO Content-Length: 937 All, This case was approved today at PSARC. John On Sat, 2008-08-23 at 20:11, Laszlo (Laca) Peter wrote: > On Sat, 2008-08-23 at 00:29 -0700, Danek Duvall wrote: > > > > Perhaps there should be a requirement for 2.5 modules? Or just make > > > > both required for the time being? > > > > > > That would make sense, at least until 2.4 is Obsolete, but I'm not > > > sure how to enforce it. > > > > By stating that requirement in this case, setting a precedent that future > > cases will have to follow. Enforcement will be up to the ARC (to point the > > rule out to teams that might not have gotten the message) and the c-teams > > (to make sure that they don't actually integrate without having support for > > both versions). > > Okay, I'll update the proposal to state that it is a requirement to > deliver python modules for both (or all) versions of python and also > 32-bit and 64-bit variants if applicable. > > Laca >