Menu
▾
▴
python-ldap-dev
|
From: <mi...@st...> - 2005-03-04 11:13:27
|
HI! For various reasons it is difficult to support older versions of Python. Especially supporting 1.x is a pain with newer modules written in Python. Or there are some subtle changes regarding data types (long integers since 2.3 etc.). Now the question is which versions of Python are still used by the python-ldap community and should be supported? Personally I'd like to be drop support for any Python version earlier than 2.3. This would make it possible to use standard modules like sets and datetime which could make life easier. Ciao, Michael. |
|
From: <mi...@st...> - 2005-03-04 11:45:07
|
Jerome Alet wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 12:13:11PM +0100, Michael Ströder wrote: > >>Now the question is which versions of Python are still used by the >>python-ldap community and should be supported? >> > > IIRC Python 2.1.3 is the standard version of Python included in > Debian Woody which is still (unfortunately) the stable Debian > release so please keep this in mind when you'll decide. Hmm, regarding Linux distributions also the versions of the OpenLDAP libs come to mind. I'd like drop support for older OpenLDAP libs too to get rid of all the #ifdef's spreaded around in the C source. Ciao, Michael. |
|
From: Jens V. <je...@da...> - 2005-03-04 11:54:54
|
On Mar 4, 2005, at 12:45, Michael Str=F6der wrote: >> IIRC Python 2.1.3 is the standard version of Python included in=20 >> Debian Woody which is still (unfortunately) the stable Debian release=20= >> so please keep this in mind when you'll decide. > > Hmm, regarding Linux distributions also the versions of the OpenLDAP=20= > libs come to mind. I'd like drop support for older OpenLDAP libs too=20= > to get rid of all the #ifdef's spreaded around in the C source. Where would you place the "cut-off"? Keep in mind that RH still ships=20 that antiquated 2.0.27 with RH9/RHEL3... If you mean dropping support=20= for OL 1.x, by all means, just do it :) jens |
|
From: <mi...@st...> - 2005-03-04 12:07:02
|
Jens Vagelpohl wrote: > >> Hmm, regarding Linux distributions also the versions of the OpenLDAP >> libs come to mind. I'd like drop support for older OpenLDAP libs too >> to get rid of all the #ifdef's spreaded around in the C source. > > Where would you place the "cut-off"? Keep in mind that RH still ships > that antiquated 2.0.27 with RH9/RHEL3... Personally I think we would do Red Hat users a favor with forcing them to install 2.2 libs. Note that the OpenLDAP project itself dropped support for 2.0.x and 2.1.x. > If you mean dropping support > for OL 1.x, by all means, just do it :) This already happened long ago... Ciao, Michael. |
|
From: Jens V. <je...@da...> - 2005-03-04 12:13:27
|
On Mar 4, 2005, at 13:06, Michael Str=F6der wrote:
> Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>>> Hmm, regarding Linux distributions also the versions of the OpenLDAP=20=
>>> libs come to mind. I'd like drop support for older OpenLDAP libs too=20=
>>> to get rid of all the #ifdef's spreaded around in the C source.
>> Where would you place the "cut-off"? Keep in mind that RH still ships=20=
>> that antiquated 2.0.27 with RH9/RHEL3...
>
> Personally I think we would do Red Hat users a favor with forcing them=20=
> to install 2.2 libs. Note that the OpenLDAP project itself dropped=20
> support for 2.0.x and 2.1.x.
Personally, I *totally* share that opinion. I'm not so certain how well=20=
that would go over with all those people that are too scared/clueless=20
or simply unwilling to go beyond their distro's own packages.
At the same time I think if you make sure to clearly mark this step=20
(both in the docs ("If you use OL version X you can only use=20
python-ldap version Y") as well as maybe by a new version number scheme=20=
(a 2.1 beta series comes to mind)) people should be satisfied. They=20
will still complain, of course ;)
jens
|
|
From: Deepak G. <de...@ar...> - 2005-03-04 19:06:09
|
On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 13:13 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> At the same time I think if you make sure to clearly mark this step
> (both in the docs ("If you use OL version X you can only use
> python-ldap version Y") as well as maybe by a new version number scheme
> (a 2.1 beta series comes to mind)) people should be satisfied. They
> will still complain, of course ;)
+1 for the "2.1 beta series" suggestion.
deepak
--
Deepak Giridharagopal
|
|
From: <mi...@st...> - 2005-03-04 19:18:27
|
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>
> At the same time I think if you make sure to clearly mark this step
> (both in the docs ("If you use OL version X you can only use python-ldap
> version Y") as well as maybe by a new version number scheme (a 2.1 beta
> series comes to mind)) people should be satisfied.
The file CHANGES in CVS already mentions version 2.1.0. This will be a
new-feature release. That's why I want to make a clear decision now
whether to make a cut with some old compability stuff.
> They will still complain, of course ;)
That's for sure. ;-}
Ciao, Michael.
|
|
From: Marc B. <ma...@ms...> - 2005-03-04 13:27:07
|
Michael Str=F6der wrote: >> >> IIRC Python 2.1.3 is the standard version of Python included in Debian= =20 >> Woody which is still (unfortunately) the stable Debian release so=20 >> please keep this in mind when you'll decide.=20 >=20 >=20 > Hmm, regarding Linux distributions also the versions of the OpenLDAP=20 > libs come to mind. I'd like drop support for older OpenLDAP libs too to= =20 > get rid of all the #ifdef's spreaded around in the C source. If "they" still stick to old python versions, then they should probably use an old python-ldap as well. I'd rather like to see a recent=20 python-ldap implementation using a recent python interpreter and recent=20 openldap libraries. python-ldap is not only used on Debian Woody so please keep this in mind=20 as well when you'll decide... Regards, Marc Balmer mb...@op... |
|
From: Jerome A. <al...@li...> - 2005-03-04 13:32:41
|
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 02:26:11PM +0100, Marc Balmer wrote: > > If "they" still stick to old python versions, then they should probably > use an old python-ldap as well. I'd rather like to see a recent > python-ldap implementation using a recent python interpreter and recent > openldap libraries. > > python-ldap is not only used on Debian Woody so please keep this in mind > as well when you'll decide... No problem. As far as I'm concerned and if the old versions are still available for people who need them, it's +1 as well. bye Jerome Alet |
|
From: Jens V. <je...@da...> - 2005-03-04 13:00:13
|
On Mar 4, 2005, at 12:13, Michael Str=F6der wrote: > HI! > > For various reasons it is difficult to support older versions of=20 > Python. Especially supporting 1.x is a pain with newer modules written=20= > in Python. Or there are some subtle changes regarding data types (long=20= > integers since 2.3 etc.). > > Now the question is which versions of Python are still used by the=20 > python-ldap community and should be supported? > > Personally I'd like to be drop support for any Python version earlier=20= > than 2.3. This would make it possible to use standard modules like=20 > sets and datetime which could make life easier. +1 As with the question of what OpenLDAP versions to support, I believe if=20= you are clearly marking the change it should be legitimate to go ahead=20= and do it. People with older OL/Python versions are advised to use=20 previous python-ldap versions. jens |
|
From: Deepak G. <de...@ar...> - 2005-03-04 18:59:17
|
On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 12:13 +0100, Michael Str=F6der wrote: > For various reasons it is difficult to support older versions of Python= .=20 > Especially supporting 1.x is a pain with newer modules written in=20 > Python.=20 Python-ldap works with Python 1.x? The INSTALL doc says that 2.0+ is a prerequisite. I ask because the patches I've thrown out there haven't been tested on 1.x... > Personally I'd like to be drop support for any Python version earlier=20 > than 2.3. This would make it possible to use standard modules like sets= =20 > and datetime which could make life easier. +1 Cheers! deepak -- Deepak Giridharagopal |
|
From: <mi...@st...> - 2005-03-04 19:13:14
|
Deepak Giridharagopal wrote: > On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 12:13 +0100, Michael Ströder wrote: > > Python-ldap works with Python 1.x? The INSTALL doc says that 2.0+ is a > prerequisite. Hmm, the low-level stuff could work with Python 1.x. > I ask because the patches I've thrown out there haven't > been tested on 1.x... Nevermind. Many parts of recent python-ldap are not tested with Python 1.x. And so far nobody complained at all. Ciao, Michael. |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X