Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 22:42:02 +0800 From: Li-Wen Hsu <lwhsu@FreeBSD.org> To: Andrew MacIntyre <andymac@bullseye.apana.org.au> Cc: freebsd-python@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [RFC] lang/python30 (and lang/python*) fixes Message-ID: <20090701144202.GA78637@FreeBSD.cs.nctu.edu.tw> In-Reply-To: <4A4B5D2A.8060208@bullseye.apana.org.au> References: <1e39c0a90906301349m5e6035acxb5098924d0aea90f@mail.gmail.com> <4A4B5D2A.8060208@bullseye.apana.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 22:57:14 +1000, Andrew MacIntyre wrote: > Given the experimental nature of Python 3.0, and the fact that 3.1 is=20 > out, it seems to me that Python 3.0's time in the ports collection > should not be extended. Yes. But as long as we do not set Python 3.0 as the default Python version, I thought there is no harm keeping 3.0 in the ports tree. However, is there any need for keeping python 2.3, or even 2.4 in the ports tree? --=20 Li-Wen Hsu <lwhsu AT FreeBSD.org> http://lwhsu.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090701144202.GA78637>