On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 08:46:33PM +0200, John Marino wrote: > > > Does anyone know of a reason why [python26] should stay? > > > >Yes. It is still being used, and it's neither broken nor unsupported > >upstream. > > "It is still being used" needs clarification. % ls -l /var/db/pkg/python25-2.5.6nb2/ total 308 -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 34 Feb 18 2012 +ALTERNATIVES -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 7258 Feb 18 2012 +BUILD_INFO -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 3309 Feb 18 2012 +BUILD_VERSION -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 63 Feb 18 2012 +COMMENT -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 275000 Feb 18 2012 +CONTENTS -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 4271 Feb 18 2012 +DEINSTALL -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 734 Feb 18 2012 +DESC -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 5033 Feb 18 2012 +INSTALL -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 101 Jul 22 13:56 +REQUIRED_BY -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 10 Feb 18 2012 +SIZE_ALL -r--r--r-- 1 root wheel 9 Feb 18 2012 +SIZE_PKG Is that clearer? > I am > pointedly questioning why we build py- packages with 2.6 when they > present no benefit _AT ALL_ over building with 2.7. Except for, you know, they work with Python 2.6, which some people are using. Also, they are neither broken nor unsupported. If you don't want to bother building them yourself, you can always put PYTHON_VERSIONS_INCOMPATIBLE=26 in your bulk build's mk.conf, although I'll ask you not to do that when/if you're committing Python packages. > I think we need to review the multiversion policy. I don't see any reason to. -- David A. Holland dholland%netbsd.org@localhost