Message142298
| Author | barry |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Arfrever, Ramchandra Apte, amaury.forgeotdarc, barry, djc, dmalcolm, doko, eric.araujo, ezio.melotti, foom, gagern, jwilk, lemburg, loewis, neologix, petri.lehtinen, pitrou, python-dev, r.david.murray, rosslagerwall, sandro.tosi, vstinner |
| Date | 2011-08-18.01:31:03 |
| SpamBayes Score | 6.0904006e-09 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <20110817200658.7a9c7129@resist.wooz.org> |
| In-reply-to | <1313630427.79.0.0198358341014.issue12326@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content | |
|---|---|
On Aug 18, 2011, at 01:20 AM, James Y Knight wrote: >James Y Knight <foom@users.sourceforge.net> added the comment: > >> I will backport the fix to 2.7 and 3.2. > >Uh, wait, so does that mean you're *not* going to do the >compatibility-preserving thing and force sys.platform to stay linux2 even >when python is built (BUILT! not run!) on a machine where the active kernel >is linux 3.x? My question too! I would say that stable releases should probably not get this change, but should force sys.platform to linux2 on 3.x kernels. BTW, does anybody think sys.platform should use a more dynamic approach for calculating its value? Well, maybe not necessary if Python 3.3 will just say 'linux'. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2011-08-18 01:31:04 | barry | set | recipients: + barry, lemburg, loewis, doko, amaury.forgeotdarc, gagern, foom, pitrou, vstinner, jwilk, djc, ezio.melotti, eric.araujo, Arfrever, r.david.murray, dmalcolm, sandro.tosi, neologix, rosslagerwall, python-dev, petri.lehtinen, Ramchandra Apte |
| 2011-08-18 01:31:04 | barry | link | issue12326 messages |
| 2011-08-18 01:31:03 | barry | create | |