[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: [pygame] Do we still need Python 2.3 support from Pygame?



On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 1:23 AM, Casey Duncan <casey@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 2008, at 8:48 PM, Brian Fisher wrote:
> [..]
>>
>> ...In fact, I think a reasonable thing for pygame to do is say you want
>> support for 2.3? then here's an installer for 1.8.1, we kept it around just
>> for you.
>
> I think this is the right way to approach this. You need to use an old
> version of python, then use an old version of pygame. I couldn't care less
> if folks are lazy, what matters is that the pygame developers lives aren't
> complicated by supporting ancient versions of the interpreter. Removing
> complexity from the development process is a very good thing.

I agree.  If you are limited to py2.3, you are limited to pygame1.8.  1.8 is
pretty good as is.  But it's not really about lazy, it's about portability.  The
reason I stick with pygame instead of pyglet, is because pygame runs
damn near ANYWHERE.  From the oldest system imaginable, to
the newest.  I don't have any users stuck on python 2.3 fortunately, but
I do have users stuck on windows 98.

> Opposition to requiring 2.6 has been voiced, and I'd have to agree that at
> this time there is little to be gained moving that far. Seems to me that
> making the next version of pygame require 2.5 is reasonable.
>
> -Casey
>
>

Yeah I don't think 2.6 should be required for at least a year or two.
As mentioned
above, I cut out a significant portion of users with 2.6.  It stinks, because I
want to upgrade, but there we go.  I could just stick with pygame 1.8 though.
So even still, I wouldn't argue too loudly if things went in this
direction.  Not to
mention, I could probably use one version of pygame/python for these users
specifically, and let everyone else upgrade.

PyObjC has been the most difficult issue for my mac users, so I would
give a cheer if that dependency were removed.