Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:59:04 -0600
From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
To: gopher@complete.org
Subject: [gopher] Re: pygopherd OK with python-2.4 ?
Message-ID: <20050120015904.GD2051@complete.org>
References: <41edac8b.KfeN2YNN1S1NEHfJ%beaker@freeshell.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <41edac8b.KfeN2YNN1S1NEHfJ%beaker@freeshell.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: gopher@complete.org

On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 04:40:43PM -0800, Jeff_W wrote:
> > I have developed PyGopherd to be a plug-in replacement for UMN
> > gopherd.  Its configuration file is different, but it can be set
> > to understand a complete UMN directory structure.
> 
> Ok, I'll give pygopherd a try; can I use the latest version
> of python (2.4)?  It'll be running on an old sparc w/ NetBSD;
> anyone know of any issues I ought to consider with such a setup?

I don't think it's been tried yet, but I also have no reason to believe
it would break horribly.  If it does break, chances are it would break
quick and you'd know it.

-- John