On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 12:49 AM, "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote: >> Several questions come to mind: >> >> 1) Is it reasonable to provide backward compatibility files (either as >> .h or .c) to provide support to new API calls to extension authors? > > I'm skeptical. In my experience, each extension has different needs, and > will also use different strategies to provide compatibility. So > publishing one way as the "official" approach might be difficult. In one > case, the proposed approach for compatibility actually led to incorrect > code (by ignoring exceptions when extracting a long), so we would need > to be fairly careful what compatibility layers we can bless as official. > >> 2) If yes, should they be included with the Python source or >> distributed as a separate entity? (2to3 and/or 3to2 projects, a Wiki >> page) > > In the way you propose it (i.e. as forward compatibility files) I fail > to see the point of including them with Python 2.7. Extension authors > likely want to support versions of Python before that, which now cannot > be changed. So those authors would still have to include the file > on their own. > > So a file distributed in Include of 2.7 actually hurts, as it would > conflict with the copy included in packages. > >> 3) If not, and extension authors can create their own compatibility >> files, are there any specific attribution or copyright messages that >> must be included? > > If you write a compatibility file from scratch, without copying existing > code, you don't need to worry at all. If you do copy parts of Python, > you must follow the license, in particular clause 2. > > Regards, > Martin >
Thanks for comments. I will just maintain my own version. Case _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
