How can 2.4 not be official if there are distributions out there which use 2.4 in their stable tree?<br><br>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 5/11/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Stephen Swaney</b> <<a href="mailto:sswaney@centurytel.net">sswaney@centurytel.net</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 06:03:00AM -0700, Ken Hughes wrote:<br><br>> A question for 64-bit linux builds: should I be making all four builds
<br>> also? I thought the devision was not to do Python 2.4 builds this<br>> time. And to refresh my memory, static and dynamic refer to OpenGL?<br><br>Static vs dynamic refers to OpenGL. Status uses software rendering,
<br>dynamic uses the (hopefully) accellerated OpenGL on the local box.<br><br>Py 2.5 is our 'official' version. Doing a 2.4 is not a requirement,<br>but might be nice if you have the time & resources. Otherwise....
<br>let them upgrade! Lazy whiners. Pre-fab retort: "you are running<br>a state of the art 64 bit machine, but using your grandmother's python?"<br><br>--<br>Stephen Swaney<br><a href="mailto:sswaney@centurytel.net">
sswaney@centurytel.net</a><br><br><br><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Bf-committers mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Bf-committers@blender.org">Bf-committers@blender.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers">
http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers</a><br><br><br><br><br></blockquote></div><br>
!DSPAM:18,4644a0af916831073343164!