Python min version bumped from 2.4+ to 2.5+

Ruslan Mahmatkhanov cvs-src at
Tue Aug 30 20:25:57 UTC 2011

Greg Larkin wrote on 31.08.2011 00:07:
> Hash: SHA1
> On 8/30/11 10:26 AM, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
>> Greg Larkin wrote on 30.08.2011 17:56:
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>> On 8/30/11 9:38 AM, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
>>>> Greg Larkin wrote on 30.08.2011 17:05:
>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>> I have a question about a commit you made in February 2011:
>>>>> Part of the commit changed:
>>>>> USE_PYTHON=    2.4+
>>>>> to
>>>>> USE_PYTHON=    2.5+
>>>>> Was there a specific reason for doing so?  I am running various
>>>>> tinderbox builds to check on port usage of the USE_PYTHON variable, and
>>>>> I noticed that devel/py-setuptools no longer builds if Python 2.4 is
>>>>> selected.
>>>>> I'd like to restore that capability, but before I send a PR, I
>>>>> wanted to
>>>>> check with you first.
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> Greg
>>>>> - --
>>>>> Greg Larkin
>>>>>           - The Power To Serve
>>>>>     - Ready. Set. Code.
>>>>>      - Follow you, follow me
>>>> I'm sorry for sail in, but i think that the reason is that python24 is
>>>> reached it's EOL long time ago. Actually the only supported python
>>>> releases atm according to are - 2.7.2 and 3.2.1, and
>>>> developers highly encourages the users to move to this versions.
>>>> 2.5 and 2.6 are in security-fix-only mode, there will be no ANY releases
>>>> for this branches after October 2011 and October 2013 respectively,
>>>> while 2.4 does not get security-fixes even.
>>>> There is also this answer from Martin in this pr:
>>>> python24 goes to the end of month, this port is on the todo for removal
>>> Hi Ruslan,
>> Hi Greg
>>> Ok, thank you for the explanation.  Shall I mark python24 for removal
>>> from the tree or file a PR for python@ to do it?
>> It's not so easy actually, since we have many ports in the tree that
>> still depend on 2.4 (notably all that zope/plone stuff) and i believe it
>> was the reason why python24 still not be removed in the first place.
>> I do some work about eliminating python24 usage in the tree (yesterdays
>> py-pysqlite2x stuff - one of it), but it's not that fast. I also working
>> on porting zope2.13/plone4 (that supports python 2.6 and 2.7) and i'm
>> planing to finish it this weekend after proper testing. After that we
>> can deprecate/remove existing zope/plone (not longer supported upstream).
> Ok, it's a bigger job than I realized!
>>> FYI, I have been running tinderbox builds with PYTHON_VERSION and
>>> PYTHON_DEFAULT_VERSION set to python2.4, python2.5, etc. to find out if
>>> ports with USE_PYTHON=yes need to be constrained a bit more.
>> Yes, there is a lot of work. We have USE_PYTHON with bogus values like
>> 1.5+, 1.6+, 2.0+ etc :). And most of python ports will not work with
>> python3x so they should be constrained with -2.7 too.
> Do you think it's helpful then to run these builds with different Python
> versions enforced?  I thought that getting the version ranges in the
> USE_PYTHON variable tightened up might help reduce the number of folks
> who run into build problems.  I would like to do the same thing with
> Perl, GCC, and others.

I, personally, believe that this almost can't help to identify 
version-specific problems, since commonly there is almost no build 
problems on different python versions (it's rarely when 
actually checking which python version it was run with). The problems 
arises on runtime stage, when apps starting to import modules, that may 
not exist in this particular python version or that installed by missing 
dependencies, etc. Such problems may be identified only with manual 
checking/greping/app docs reading. But this is just my point.
You'd better to ask Martin - he is committer that skilled with python 
stuff in ports, and i'm not proper person to take responsibility for 
decisions like that :). I just can to sound my point on this. However, 
it definitely will help to identify gcc version-specific build problems.

>>> I figured that python2.4 was supported since it was still in the tree
>>> and wasn't marked for removal yet, but I admin that I didn't check
>>> for confirmation.
>> As i already stated, i believe it's still there because there is
>> dependent ports. And as far i know in linux world noone shipping
>> python24 this days. Even RHEL/CentOS finally switched to 2.6.5 in their
>> 6.x branches.
>>> Regards,
>>> Greg
>>> - --
>>> Greg Larkin
>>>           - The Power To Serve
>>>     - Ready. Set. Code.
>>>      - Follow you, follow me


Tinderboxing kills... the drives.

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list