Python 2.6 report

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

Paul Moore wrote:
> I haven't looked at the code yet, but my instinct would be to replace
> os.popenX with util.popenX, where util.popenX was os.popenX on older
> Pythons, and for 2.6 emulated the interface using subprocess (see
> section 17.1.3.5 "Replacing os.popen*" in the Python manuals).

Ah, yes, that would probably easier. I just thought it might be nicer to 
adapt to the future interface than to the past interface, but this 
should less hairy.

Cheers,

Dirkjan