[petsc-dev] Python 2.2

[Barry Smith]

    We don't want to require people who use PETSc to have to go and  
download a "new" version of python just because they are using it to  
install PETSc. This means that so long as "reasonably commonly" used  
systems still have 2.2 we need to live with 2.2 limitations. Then it  
comes down to how do with measure "reasonably commonly" used systems,  
that is how do we determine when some system is no longer reasonably  
commonly used? I'd rather error on the side of not forcing people to  
update python then forcing them to update just so ./config/ 
configure.py has slightly cleaner code.

    Note that does not mean that we should use python 2.2 for  
everything. For example, if Lisandro were to decide that PETSc4py  
would require 3.0 I think that would be completely reasonable. The  
difference is if python is tool the user is working with when they can  
benefit from the latest and greatest features vs just a tool that  
PETSc uses to get installed.



    Barry

On Feb 3, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Matthew Knepley wrote:

> So if RHEL supports it for 20 years, we should?
>
>   Matt
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov>  
> wrote:
>
>  We should keep it. The important date is not when  new feature is  
> introduced but when the packagers actually distribute it.
>
>   Barry
>
> On Feb 3, 2010, at 9:57 AM, Satish Balay wrote:
>
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Matthew Knepley wrote:
>
> The last release of Python 2.2 was May 30, 2003. The fixes Satish
> has just put in are pretty ugly. At what point do we give up on an
> antiquated Python?
>
> I think its good if we can keep configure working for a wide rane of
> python versions [whatever the user has].
>
> One timeline we can use is - RHEL/CentOS EOL dates. RHEL3/CentOS3 with
> python2.2 is supported till Oct 31, 2010, RHEL4/CentOS4 with default
> python2.3 is supported til Feb 29, 2012.
>
> Or drop python2.2 for next release... Barry can decide...
>
> Satish
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their  
> experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which  
> their experiments lead.
> -- Norbert Wiener