[osgeo4w-dev] Python 2.6

[Patrick Cullen]

It seems like it would be a fairly common case that an osgeo4w user would 1) only use a small subset of the available packages 2) eventually need to upgrade a package due to external dependencies before everybody else is ready.  This seems especially likely where core components are concerned (Python, ogr, etc.)  Are there docs / email threads addressing?  Surely somebody else has tried to upgrade python or will soon?

> Subject: RE: [osgeo4w-dev] Python 2.6
> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 13:21:54 -0500
> From: David.Sampson at NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca
> To: warmerdam at pobox.com
> CC: cullepm3 at hotmail.com; osgeo4w-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> 
> Fair enough,
> 
> Just thought if it was a resource issue I could have helped.
> 
> I have run into instances where some external libs req 2.6. But taking
> on the building of one lib for a specific task would certainly be less
> disruptive.
> 
> Just thought I would offer.
> 
> Cheers 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: osgeo4w-dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org 
> > [mailto:osgeo4w-dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of 
> > Frank Warmerdam
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 12:41
> > To: Sampson, David
> > Cc: Patrick Cullen; osgeo4w-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> > Subject: Re: [osgeo4w-dev] Python 2.6
> > 
> > Sampson, David wrote:
> > > Hey Folks.
> > > 
> > > A. Would it help if I lent a hand? I just recently learnt how to 
> > > handle SWIG for python and also posted a message to OSGEO discuss 
> > > concerning migrating to Python 3.0
> > > 
> > > B. How do I find out what modules?  
> > > 
> > > C. Could building a script help us in the future? Especially with 
> > > migrating to 3.x?
> > > 
> > > D. I could always build inside a virtual winxp box on my 
> > linux system 
> > > at home. A mini build env?
> > 
> > Dave,
> > 
> > The various python modules are already "owned" by packagers 
> > and it could be distruptive to have someone else drop in and 
> > try to replace them all without necessarily knowing the 
> > special conditions the original packagers accounted for.  I 
> > would prefer a move to Python 2.6 take place as part of an 
> > agreed step by all the OSGeo4W stakeholders.
> > 
> > Personally, I'm not clear on benefits of Python 2.6 that 
> > would justify a large amount of disruption.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > -- 
> > ---------------------------------------+----------------------
> > ----------
> > ---------------------------------------+------
> > I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, 
> > warmerdam at pobox.com
> > light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
> > and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial 
> > Programmer for Rent
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > osgeo4w-dev mailing list
> > osgeo4w-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/osgeo4w-dev
> > 
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/osgeo4w-dev/attachments/20100106/15dd001b/attachment.html