> So, er, is this a remotely sane thing to be doing, and does anyone have
> suggestions? :)
Not for 2.6/3.0 - but after that: sounds good.
OTOH, I don't see a clear technical *need* for these data to be const.
In general, const-ness helps correctness and sharing across processes,
and the cases yo
> May be an external program called by the uninstaller can take care
> of this, removing what was added to PATH.
Or a custom action. There are ways to solve this problem - they just
take some effort to implement them.
Regards,
Martin
___
Python-Dev mail
> A cleaner (though still dirty) way to achieve this would be to add a
> link to the appropriate "python.exe" in a directory already on the path
> such as c:\Windows\system32
That would be fairly easy to implement. I suppose pythonw.exe wouldn't
need the same treatment, as people won't invoke it m
>> I mean that many Windows use the PATH, and as such, may fail if a new
>> directory is added to the PATH that contains a DLL they indirectly use.
>
> Then it's just a matter of not putting any DLLs in those directories, isn't
> it?
A. It's not just DLLs. Any program invoking CreateProcess mig
> FWIW, my opinion is similar to how I read Martin's - that if a suitable,
> safe patch that cleanly uninstalls can be found, it should be included, but
> disabled by default. Personally I'd never use it.
That's my view also (less strict now; I previously would have rejected
it outright, as I did
> I thought that all that was happening was that BSDDB was becoming a
> separate project. If one needs BSDDB with Python2.6, one installs it.
No, not in the way you mean it.
> Aren't there other parts of Python that require external modules, such as
> Tk?
It's different. BSDDB (the Sleepycat-th
>> Unfortunately this advice should have been taken several years
>> ago. The fact is that there are almost certainly Python users who
>> rely on the presence of the bsddb module for production work, and
>> simply removing it without deprecation is bound to upset those users.
G
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oleg Broytmann wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 11:34:37AM -0700, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
>>> You could probably have built the bsddb185 module and loaded your data
>>> from that and rewritten it using the new bsddb module.
Oleg Broytmann wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 11:34:37AM -0700, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
>> You could probably have built the bsddb185 module and loaded your data
>> from that and rewritten it using the new bsddb module.
>
>I built bsddb185, loaded old data, exported it to... I don't remember
On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 02:35:58PM -0700, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Another thing to keep in mind with the whole shelve/dbm.any argument
> > is that for 3.1 there is nothing saying we can't change shelve and the
> > dbm pa
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Brett Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another thing to keep in mind with the whole shelve/dbm.any argument
> is that for 3.1 there is nothing saying we can't change shelve and the
> dbm package to allow 3rd-party code to register with the dbm package
> such that
Barry Warsaw wrote:
(I have a few minor ET fixes, and possibly a Unicode 5.1 patch, but
have had absolutely no time to spend on that. is the window still open?)
There are 8 open release blockers, a few of which have patches that need
review. So I think we are still not ready to release rc1.
On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 11:34:37AM -0700, Gregory P. Smith wrote:
> You could probably have built the bsddb185 module and loaded your data
> from that and rewritten it using the new bsddb module.
I built bsddb185, loaded old data, exported it to... I don't remember
now, but I clearly remember I
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Oleg Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 07:40:28PM +0200, Jesus Cea wrote:
>> A stable fileformat is useful for long term support, but an evolving
>> format allows improvements.
>
> Once I upgraded Python on a Windows computer... I thin
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 7:33 AM, Oleg Broytmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 03:23:22PM +0200, Jesus Cea wrote:
>> Compared to sqlite, you don't need to know SQL, you can finetuning (for
>> example, using ACI instead of ACID, deciding store by store), and you
>> can do replic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
>>From this page:
>
> http://docs.python.org/dev/index.html
>
> I searched for "csv" and got just one hit:
>
> http://docs.python.org/dev/contents.html?highlight=csv
>
> Shouldn't it have at least matched the docs for the csv module itself, not
> just the tabl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sep 7, 2008, at 10:51 AM, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I'm not going to release rc1 tonight. There are too many open
release blockers that I don't want to defer, and I'd like the
buildbots to churn through the bsddb removal on a
> SVN checkout over HTTPS protocol requires password. Is it intentional
> or just temporary server issue? I am behind a proxy that doesn't
> support PROPFIND requests and I can't test SVN+SSH, because 22 port is
> closed.
>
> Site docs keep silence about that HTTPS is used at all. Shouldn't
> auth
Barry Warsaw wrote:
I'm not going to release rc1 tonight. There are too many open release
blockers that I don't want to defer, and I'd like the buildbots to churn
through the bsddb removal on all platforms.
I'd like to try again on Friday and stick to rc2 on the 17th.
any news on this fro
19 matches
Mail list logo
