Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #87503 > unrolled thread

Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 14:22 +1100
    Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-15 22:07 -0700
      Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 16:39 +1100
        Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-15 23:17 -0700
          Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-03-16 19:00 +1100
            Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-16 01:31 -0700
              Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-03-17 00:05 +1100
                Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-03-17 00:29 +1100
              Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-03-16 13:59 -0400
        Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-03-16 18:56 +1100
          Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-16 01:25 -0700
            Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain INADA Naoki <songofacandy@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 18:13 +0900
              Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-03-16 22:55 +1100
            Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-03-17 01:25 +1100
              Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-16 15:36 -0700
                Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-03-16 22:28 -0400
                  Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2015-03-17 01:31 -0700
                Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-03-17 22:26 +1100
                  Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2015-03-17 07:03 -0700
                  Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-03-17 15:35 +0100
                  Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-19 16:23 -0700
                    Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-03-19 22:03 -0400
                      Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-03-20 03:54 +0100
            Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 11:20 -0600
              Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-03-17 07:36 +1100
                Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 20:14 -0600
                Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au> - 2015-03-17 17:47 +1100
            Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-03-16 13:47 -0400
            Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-03-16 18:14 +0000
            Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain INADA Naoki <songofacandy@gmail.com> - 2015-03-17 04:41 +0900
            Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-03-17 09:02 +1100
              Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-03-17 04:04 +0100
                Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 21:33 -0600
                  Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-03-17 19:36 +1100
                Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-03-17 14:42 +1100
                  Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-03-17 05:30 +0100
                    Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au> - 2015-03-18 08:53 +1100
                Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-03-17 14:49 +1100
                  Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-03-17 05:26 +0100
                    Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-03-17 04:36 +0000
                      Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-17 14:50 +0000
                        Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2015-03-17 08:15 -0700
                        Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-03-17 18:36 -0400
                        Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-03-17 22:41 +0000
                        Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-03-18 08:04 -0400
                      Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-03-18 02:02 +0100
            [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 19:46 -0600
              Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-03-17 19:39 +1100
                Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-03-17 09:02 -0600
              Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-03-19 16:37 -0600
                Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2015-03-20 02:40 -0700
                  Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-03-20 15:59 +0100
                    Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-03-20 16:03 +0100
                    Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-03-20 15:42 +0000
                    Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-03-21 04:13 +1100
                    Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2015-03-20 12:21 -0700
            Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-03-17 12:57 +1100
              Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-16 19:45 -0700
                Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 21:05 -0600
            Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 20:07 -0600
            Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-03-17 02:21 +0000
            Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-03-17 13:40 +1100
              Package manager cooperation? (was Weaknesses of distro package managers) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 20:09 -0700
                Re: Package manager cooperation? (was Weaknesses of distro package managers) Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 21:32 -0600
                Re: Package manager cooperation? (was Weaknesses of distro package managers) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-03-17 04:03 +0000
                Re: Package manager cooperation? (was Weaknesses of distro package managers) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-03-17 15:18 +1100
                  Re: Package manager cooperation? (was Weaknesses of distro package managers) wxjmfauth@gmail.com - 2015-03-17 01:44 -0700
            Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 20:51 -0600
            Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-03-17 03:01 +0000
            Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 21:05 -0600
              Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Mario Figueiredo <marfig@gmail.com> - 2015-03-17 04:07 +0100
            Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-03-17 03:17 +0000
            Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Alexander <xr.lists@gmail.com> - 2015-03-17 16:44 +1300
          Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-03-16 19:51 +1100
      Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2015-03-16 04:53 -0400
        Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-16 02:27 -0700

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#87593

On 16/03/2015 22:02, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:20 AM, Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A bit off topic here, but all of this highlights major weaknesses in the
>> Linux software distribution model. While we Linux nerds like to poke fun
>> at Windows for not even having a proper package manager until Windows
>> 10, in fact the package manager is not always the best way to go.  Works
>> well for core system parts, and for distro maintainers.  But it sucks
>> miserably for developers, and to a lesser degree, end users.  I should
>> be able to have a stable core distro like RHEL 7 (or any distro), but
>> develop and distribute apps for Python 3 easily.  Say what you want
>> about Red Hat's Poettering, but what he says about this problem makes a
>> lot of sense:
>> http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html.
>
> It most assuredly does NOT suck for end users. Apart from issues of
> naming (grab "avconv" or "ffmpeg"?), it's easy - if someone needs to
> do audio manipulation, I can tell him/her to "sudo apt-get install
> sox" and that'll get the necessary program on any Debian-based distro,
> and likewise one command for any Red Hat distro. I'm not sure what you
> mean by "for developers" - do you mean that it's hard to package your
> software for each distro? Because the package manager benefits you
> even if you don't package your own program. Imagine you need a
> PostgreSQL database for your Python application - which also means you
> need psycopg2, of course. How do you go about writing installation
> instructions?
>
> * WINDOWS *
> 1) Install the latest Python 3 from https://www.python.org/downloads/windows/
> 2) Install the appropriate version of psycopg2 from
> http://www.stickpeople.com/projects/python/win-psycopg/
> 3) Install the latest PostgreSQL from
> http://www.postgresql.org/download/windows/
> 4) Install my program from blah blah blah
>

pip install xyz fits *MY* needs, so blow you Jack, I'm all right. 
Hopefully to be part of IDLE as well, that should save the teachers or 
trainers from changing a few nappies.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87595 — Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain

Thanks for discussing this, Michael.

Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> writes:

> For developers things are even more grim. Package managers certainly
> don't work so well for third-party apps like VirtualBox, LibreOffice,
> Firefox, etc. Part of the issue is the multiple moving targets distros
> present in terms of what's available in the system. It's so bad in
> fact that major projects that offer binary packages on their web sites
> end up bundling copies of libraries they use, such as GTK, SSL, etc.

In my experience it's far more extensive than that. The trend seems to
be to bundle every third-party library with one's own work, and dump it
all in the end-user's lap.

> This is how VirtualBox, Firefox, and LibreOffice all do it. It works

It “works fine” only if you ignore:

* The third-party library will have bug fixes.

  Upgrading the OS package for libGTK will get those bug fixes, but
  won't affect all the bundled ones in other packages. Who is
  responsible for fixing those?

* The third-party library will have security vulnerabilities. This is a
  special, but fairly common, case of needing a bug fix.

  The operating systems will make it a priority to upgrade the OS
  package for the library, and the package manager makes sure that's as
  easy as can be feasible so there's some chance it will be fixed.

  Who is responsible for fixing all the bundled versions of the library
  with bug fixes?

* The third-party library willl behave differently from the OS packaged
  version.

  Often, for the developer, that is exactly the point: the developer
  doesn't want the OS packaged version because they want a version with
  different behaviour. So they bundle a specific version, to heck with
  what the OS provides.

  From the point of view of the user, though, deviations from how they
  expect the OS to behave are a bug. If libGTK makes some widget behave
  in a particular way all across the operating system, except in program
  FooBar and BuzQuux, they're going to consider those two programs
  buggy. In my opinion they're correct: those programs should work with
  the rest of the OS, not be rogue.

> but it's wasteful and they still have to target at least three to five
> different distro/package manager combinations.

I think “wasteful” is not much of an issue (and is less of an issue as
storage becomes plentiful). Far more problematic are the divergences
between OS packaged libraries and bundled libraries, as I detailed
above.

> Ideally you should get your package in a mainline repo where
> ostensibly it's updated and maintained and just works with your distro
> of choice. Except when it doesn't.

Thanks again. This is an important and difficult problem, with competing
forces at play, and I am not at all satisfied with the current state of
packaging.

-- 
 \           “He who wonders discovers that this in itself is wonder.” |
  `\                                          —Maurits Cornelis Escher |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87605 — Package manager cooperation? (was Weaknesses of distro package managers)

On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 8:10:16 AM UTC+5:30, Ben Finney wrote:
> Thanks for discussing this, Michael.
> 
> Michael Torrie  writes:
> 
> > For developers things are even more grim. Package managers certainly
> > don't work so well for third-party apps like VirtualBox, LibreOffice,
> > Firefox, etc. Part of the issue is the multiple moving targets distros
> > present in terms of what's available in the system. It's so bad in
> > fact that major projects that offer binary packages on their web sites
> > end up bundling copies of libraries they use, such as GTK, SSL, etc.
> 
> In my experience it's far more extensive than that. The trend seems to
> be to bundle every third-party library with one's own work, and dump it
> all in the end-user's lap.
> 
> > This is how VirtualBox, Firefox, and LibreOffice all do it. It works
> 
> It "works fine" only if you ignore:

I believe the problem is that package-managers will multiply and proliferate.
Will they insist on warring or can they cooperate?

eg Lets take it that apt is the most mature, stable etc package manager.
But its also the most backward in the sense of being downstream.

OTOH many large-scale systems have sprouted their own packaging-systems

eg the full texlive system is some 2GB download! and has its own tlmgr

It would be good for things like apt to make a public-API and thereafter
For things like tlmgr, firefox-plugins, and of course
python-pip
ruby-gems
haskell-cabal
etc etc

to try to be at least quasi-auto interoperable with apt

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87610 — Re: Package manager cooperation? (was Weaknesses of distro package managers)

On 03/16/2015 09:09 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> OTOH many large-scale systems have sprouted their own packaging-systems

And indeed PIP and CPAN are both forms of package managers to fit the
special needs of those languages' developers. Sometimes that works well
with the OS package manager, sometimes it's at odds.

> eg the full texlive system is some 2GB download! and has its own tlmgr
> 
> It would be good for things like apt to make a public-API and thereafter
> For things like tlmgr, firefox-plugins, and of course
> python-pip
> ruby-gems
> haskell-cabal
>
> to try to be at least quasi-auto interoperable with apt

A meta package manager could, in theory, interact with all these systems
in a unified way.  That's certainly one approach.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87617 — Re: Package manager cooperation? (was Weaknesses of distro package managers)

On 17/03/2015 03:32, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 03/16/2015 09:09 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
>> OTOH many large-scale systems have sprouted their own packaging-systems
>
> And indeed PIP and CPAN are both forms of package managers to fit the
> special needs of those languages' developers. Sometimes that works well
> with the OS package manager, sometimes it's at odds.
>
>> eg the full texlive system is some 2GB download! and has its own tlmgr
>>
>> It would be good for things like apt to make a public-API and thereafter
>> For things like tlmgr, firefox-plugins, and of course
>> python-pip
>> ruby-gems
>> haskell-cabal
>>
>> to try to be at least quasi-auto interoperable with apt
>
> A meta package manager could, in theory, interact with all these systems
> in a unified way.  That's certainly one approach.
>

Wouldn't that be heading into a meta minefield?  Isn't the problem that 
package managers are trying to solve that of configuration management? 
How many installations have to change world wide because of one serious 
bug in (say) OpenSSL?

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87618 — Re: Package manager cooperation? (was Weaknesses of distro package managers)

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> wrote:
> A meta package manager could, in theory, interact with all these systems
> in a unified way.  That's certainly one approach.

http://xkcd.com/927/

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87631 — Re: Package manager cooperation? (was Weaknesses of distro package managers)

Le mardi 17 mars 2015 05:19:15 UTC+1, Chris Angelico a écrit :
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> wrote:
> > A meta package manager could, in theory, interact with all these systems
> > in a unified way.  That's certainly one approach.
> 
> http://xkcd.com/927/
> 
In the same spirit.
There are even some people who tried to "reinvent"
Unicode and they failed.
See my previous post: LibreOffice.

jmf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87597 — Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain

On 03/16/2015 08:40 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Thanks again. This is an important and difficult problem, with competing
> forces at play, and I am not at all satisfied with the current state of
> packaging.

I agree.  Though I like the concept of package managers and curated
repos, compared to the dismal world of Windows, I also am not very
satisfied with the current state of things.

That's why I think the ideas coming out of this Red Hat think tank are
interesting and worth discussion.  They put forth a possible solution
that keeps the existing things we love about package managers and our
distros of choice, while addressing these important issues in a
maintainable, flexible, and still secure way.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87599 — Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain

On 17/03/2015 02:51, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 03/16/2015 08:40 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>> Thanks again. This is an important and difficult problem, with competing
>> forces at play, and I am not at all satisfied with the current state of
>> packaging.
>
> I agree.  Though I like the concept of package managers and curated
> repos, compared to the dismal world of Windows, I also am not very
> satisfied with the current state of things.
>
> That's why I think the ideas coming out of this Red Hat think tank are
> interesting and worth discussion.  They put forth a possible solution
> that keeps the existing things we love about package managers and our
> distros of choice, while addressing these important issues in a
> maintainable, flexible, and still secure way.
>

Reading this makes me realise how lucky I am not having to worry about 
such issues.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87601 — Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain

On 03/16/2015 09:01 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> Reading this makes me realise how lucky I am not having to worry about 
> such issues.

How so?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87604 — Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 21:05:03 -0600, Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 03/16/2015 09:01 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>> Reading this makes me realise how lucky I am not having to worry about 
>> such issues.
>
>How so?

Speaking for myself (I know you didn't ask me) what you call the
"dismal world of windows", I call install exactly what I want, exactly
when I want.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87606 — Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain

On 17/03/2015 03:05, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 03/16/2015 09:01 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>> Reading this makes me realise how lucky I am not having to worry about
>> such issues.
>
> How so?
>

I don't work due to ill health.  I use Python at home on Windows purely 
for my own needs which pip now covers, particularly given the relatively 
recent introduction of wheel files.  For anything else download the msi 
or exe file and click to install.  Seems like utopia compared to the 
real world that the rest of you have to live and work in.  Sure I have 
to do some research first and maybe make mistakes, but I do have the 
luxury of time, no boss and no stupid deadlines set by some dumbo sales 
person, sorry, account manager :)

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87614 — Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi all,

Surely you did not look at the package manager and package assortment of
OpenBSD.

It is actually a really good example of how package repository can be both
reliable, easy to use and up to date.

Also, what sort of quality can be expected from a piece of software, whose
author is unable to package it properly (or to design it, so it can be
packaged)?



On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 03/16/2015 08:40 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> > Thanks again. This is an important and difficult problem, with competing
> > forces at play, and I am not at all satisfied with the current state of
> > packaging.
>
> I agree.  Though I like the concept of package managers and curated
> repos, compared to the dismal world of Windows, I also am not very
> satisfied with the current state of things.
>
> That's why I think the ideas coming out of this Red Hat think tank are
> interesting and worth discussion.  They put forth a possible solution
> that keeps the existing things we love about package managers and our
> distros of choice, while addressing these important issues in a
> maintainable, flexible, and still secure way.
>
> --
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87535

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> [ a whole lot of stuff that I agree with, and then ... ]
> Module renames could be handled via stub modules. Even Unicode strings could
> hypothetically have been added via a __future__ import.

This part I don't agree with. The problem with the Unicode / bytes
distinction is that library functions are written to expect one or the
other. Even in the stdlib, issues have been found, and the future
import can't solve that. You can already create Unicode strings in
Py2, with the u"..." syntax; you can even make it the default with
unicode_literals; but you can't magically make functions in other
modules cope with the other type of string. (Not with a __future__
import, anyway. Maybe "from __fairy_godmother__ import pumpkin"?)
Whenever it's easy, I encourage people to write their Py2 code to be
Py3-compatible - put parens around their print calls, be clear about
integer vs float division, use the "as" syntax for exception catching
- but I don't encourage from __future__ import unicode_literals,
because it tends to just move problems around rather than solving
them.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87537

On 3/16/2015 1:07 AM, Paul Rubin wrote:

> I saved a quote from Hacker News a while back (I don't know who the
> author is):
>
>      "You know why I'm not running python 3?
 >       Because it doesn't solve a single problem I have.

Quite possibly true.

 >        It doesn't solve anyone's problems. It solves
>      imaginary problems, while creating real problems."

A blatent, selfish lie.

>        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7802575
>
> I think the person went a bit overboard,

I call it more than a bit overboard.  But anyway ...

> but other than the Unicode revamp I don't know what Python 3
 > improvements couldn't have been done
> in Python 2 without breaking anything.

Every change potentially breaks something.  (How would you have changed 
1/2 from 0 to .5 without breaking anything?) The issue is cost versus 
gain.  We do maintenance bugfix releases because the gain for bugfixes, 
and the gain of applying them immediately, is *usually* considered 
greater than the cost.  Some bugfixes are delayed to the 'next' version. 
  Non-bugfix changes require deprecation for at least one version before 
making the change.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87541

Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> writes:
> Every change potentially breaks something.  (How would you have
> changed 1/2 from 0 to .5 without breaking anything?) 

I would not have changed that.  It was an ill-advised change that broke
things unnecessarily.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web