On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 10:05:11PM +0200, Dr. Peter Poeml wrote:
SLES9 ships with Python 2.3. With my latest code changes, I noticed that I changed things in a way incompatible to Python 2.3 (using decorators).
(I basically noticed this because byte-compiling failed according to the build log, although the build didn't actually fail due to that. I saw it by pure luck.)
This can easily be fixed, so I removed the decorators and started to test osc on SLES9, and found more problems on the way.
Python 2.3 didn't have a cookielib module, and it is not easy to add it because parts of it live integrated in the urllib2 module. Still, it is straightforward to just skip cookie support if not available.
But there were further problems, which prevent the current codebase from working with Python 2.3. I fixed some further issues, and got as far as to a working 'osc build'.
However, the next problem I'm facing is that I can't commit files (gets an internal server error back), and since urllib2 is not as easy to debug as newer versions, I stopped there for now.
Overall, the situation gives me the impression that osc hasn't been working on SLES9 lately, or maybe since a long time, and nobody did ever complain about it.
The download statistics show 6 or 7 osc package downloads in the last 50 days for SLES9.
What do you think. Is it worth pursuing this further? Or should we maybe simply no longer build osc for SLES9?
All other platforms in the buildservice seem to have Python 2.4 or newer.
Due to lack of interest, I have disabled build of osc on SLES9 now.
(I'm trying to wipe the binaries too, but that doesn't seem to have an effect yet. Maybe repository regeration will do it, somehow, later.)