[RFC] lang/python30 (and lang/python*) fixes

[Andrew MacIntyre]

Li-Wen Hsu wrote:
> 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 
>> 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.

Python 3.0 was never intended for production use, and is pretty much 
dead as far as the Python dev team are concerned.  A decision has 
basically been taken that no further maintenance releases will be 
issued.  Very few third party extension modules have been ported to it.
All effort devoted to Python 3.x is being focussed on 3.1 and later.

I think there are strong grounds for burying the 3.0 port, in the same 
way that release candidate ports get buried when a final release is made 
- Python 3.x was effectively a release candidate (beta release more 
like) of Python 3.1.

> However, is there any need for keeping python 2.3, or even 2.4 in the
> ports tree?

2.4 definitely, as Zope is still tied (officially) to it.  2.3 is still 
widely used in some environments, and is still being actively supported 
by some third party module developers.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew I MacIntyre                     "These thoughts are mine alone..."
E-mail: andymac at bullseye.apana.org.au  (pref) | Snail: PO Box 370
        andymac at pcug.org.au             (alt) |        Belconnen ACT 2616
Web:    http://www.andymac.org/               |        Australia