Project:Pywikibot/Survey2012

Python 2.4 users
Edit this section if you have a serious reason to use this version of Python

Python 2.5 users
Edit this section if you have a serious reason to use this version of Python

ISO 8859-2
I am using Windows XP CZ (SP2) (ISO 8859-2) on two different computers.

When I have in my user-config no :

Everything works well for me
 * Py 2.5 :
 * I have good czech characters in terminal window
 * I can write e.q.
 * I can write e.g.  and after ask I write

I am not able to read in terminal window
 * Py 2.6+
 * I have bad czech characters in terminal window (ˇ instead of í, " " instead of á, nothing instead of ů, ý instead of ř....)
 * I can write e.g.
 * I can write e.g.

With

I am not able to write to terminal window
 * Py 2.6+
 * I have good czech characters in terminal window
 * I can write e.q.
 * I can't write e.g.  and after ask I write

With I am not able to read or write to terminal window
 * Py 2.6+
 * I have bad non-base-ASCII characters in terminal window (two or three instead of one, translitertation for cyrilic or asian languages doesn't work
 * I can't write e.q.  - bot crashes
 * I can't write e.g.  and after ask I write   - bot crashes

With I am not able to write to terminal window
 * I have good czech characters in terminal window
 * I can't write e.q.  - page does not exist
 * I can't write e.g.  and after ask I write   - page does not exist, bad chars in terminal window

JAn Dudík (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I can confirm there has been a change in console output between python 2.5 and later versions. Instead of having codepage-dependant output, it seems windows-1252 is consistently used. However, all of this is caused by the crappy console in windows. However, I'm working on a solution that makes all code page crap irrelevant. Valhallasw (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On a side note, your codepage will not be 1250 but rather 852. Or something. I don't even know what the codepage does in what context anymore. Valhallasw (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Python 2.6 users
Edit this section if you have a serious reason to use this version of Python
 * I use Cygwin and it seems, that Cygwin don't support 2.7. Of course it minor issue, because Cygwin using it's a perversion :-) --Movses (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Cygwin and Debian 6.0 squeeze Guaka (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In Squeeze it's not so hard to fetch python 2.7.2 source, do ./configure; make; sudo make install and run scripts like /usr/local/bin/python2.7 but now it seems I might want to have the bot running from RHEL5 (with is 2.5 or 2.6 or so). Guaka (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Debian Squeeze - this makes 2.6 easier to use, but I'd survive if it's deprecated. (Would consider moving to Debian Wheezy, which is currently Testing, or running a VM.) --Chriswaterguy (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Python 2.7.0/2.7.1 users
Edit this section if you have a serious reason to use this version of Python


 * fedora uses 2.7.1
 * toolserver uses 2.7.1 but patched to have unicode bug fixed
 * ubuntu uses 2.7.1+ (not sure what the "+" stands for, look e.g. here)

I think the day we can go officially to 2.7.2 will become a "delightful holiday", but meanwhile this is slightly more radical than useful. The 2.7.1 seems to be a magic and commonly used one. --DrTrigon (talk) 12:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"Not supported does not necessarily mean we have to actively remove bits that work around quirks for a certain version; rather, it means we won't fix bugs due to an old python version." - I would agree with that, since we should not waste time in something that might become contra-productive for some users. --DrTrigon (talk) 12:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want to run an interwiki bot, you either have to use python 2.5 or >= 2.7.2. In addition, recent releases of ubuntu (oneiric and precise) already use 2.7.2 (source). Valhallasw (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we should cut a branch for 2.5 support, start refactoring code for 2.7.2 so it is available for any distro that includes 2.7.2 in their stable release. John Vandenberg (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand what you are suggesting. What code should be refactored, and how is this related tho whether the distro includes 2.7.2 in the stable release or not? In addition, I don't really see the point of branching - that would only /increase/ maintenance burden. Valhallasw (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)