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 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#87639

On 2015-03-17, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Of course we could avoid all of these problems if we were to bring back 
> the mainframe or mini and the dumb terminal.

We did, except we made the terminal smarter and prettier and called it
a "web browser" and we call the mainframe a "web server".

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! I had a lease on an
                                  at               OEDIPUS COMPLEX back in
                              gmail.com            '81 ...

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

#87641

Le mardi 17 mars 2015 15:51:10 UTC+1, Grant Edwards a écrit :
> On 2015-03-17, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > Of course we could avoid all of these problems if we were to bring back 
> > the mainframe or mini and the dumb terminal.
> 
> We did, except we made the terminal smarter and prettier and called it
> a "web browser" and we call the mainframe a "web server".
> 
> -- 
> Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! I had a lease on an
>                                   at               OEDIPUS COMPLEX back in
>                               gmail.com            '81 ...

Are you not suffering from an ASCII complex?

Is it not The OEDIPUS COMPLEX even in English (GB and US)?

Eg The OEdipus-Complex as an Explanation of Hamlet's Mystery:
A Study in Motive
or
THE SO-CALLED OEDIPUS-COMPLEX IN HAMLET

jmf

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

#87651

On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:50:57 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards
<invalid@invalid.invalid> declaimed the following:

>On 2015-03-17, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Of course we could avoid all of these problems if we were to bring back 
>> the mainframe or mini and the dumb terminal.
>
>We did, except we made the terminal smarter and prettier and called it
>a "web browser" and we call the mainframe a "web server".

	That, or it's a Raspberry PI (or two of them emulating a VAXCluster
<G>)
-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
    wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

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

#87652

On 17/03/2015 22:36, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:50:57 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards
> <invalid@invalid.invalid> declaimed the following:
>
>> On 2015-03-17, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Of course we could avoid all of these problems if we were to bring back
>>> the mainframe or mini and the dumb terminal.
>>
>> We did, except we made the terminal smarter and prettier and called it
>> a "web browser" and we call the mainframe a "web server".
>
> 	That, or it's a Raspberry PI (or two of them emulating a VAXCluster
> <G>)
>

Have they already achieved with the Raspberry PI something that Unix was 
years behind VAX/VMS on?

-- 
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]

#87677

On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 22:41:35 +0000, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk>
declaimed the following:

>On 17/03/2015 22:36, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:50:57 +0000 (UTC), Grant Edwards
>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> declaimed the following:
>>
>>> On 2015-03-17, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Of course we could avoid all of these problems if we were to bring back
>>>> the mainframe or mini and the dumb terminal.
>>>
>>> We did, except we made the terminal smarter and prettier and called it
>>> a "web browser" and we call the mainframe a "web server".
>>
>> 	That, or it's a Raspberry PI (or two of them emulating a VAXCluster
>> <G>)
>>
>
>Have they already achieved with the Raspberry PI something that Unix was 
>years behind VAX/VMS on?

http://www.rs-online.com/designspark/electronics/blog/a-raspberry-pi-vax-cluster
-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
    wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

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

#87658

On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 04:36:01 +0000, Mark Lawrence
<breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>Of course we could avoid all of these problems if we were to bring back 
>the mainframe or mini and the dumb terminal.
>
>Take cover, incoming :)

No kidding. Installing only the software you coded (or from source)
may be a little too much for today's complex software. But life was
good!

I started my carrer next to an IBM ES900. Not coding, mind you. Doing
nightly backups, from 8:00 pm to 4:30 am. That's how we started our
programming careers back in the 80s; through pain and suffering.

Next to me was also an old VAX with its insane batch programming
language and the company (Alcatel) had just bought two brand new
AS/400 which were the first two come up with a sort of graphical
interface API not unlike curses.

Of the three systems, only the AS/400 allowed for the installation of
pr-compiled binaries, if memory serves me right. During the first 6
months, nothing that wasn't IBM made ever installed...

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

#87589 — [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain

Since Python 3's adoption is directly impacted by package managers and
curated repos (or lack thereof), I feel justified in continuing this
thread just a bit farther.

On 03/16/2015 04:02 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> 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?

Except that it does suck in lots of ways.  I didn't say the Windows
method was better.  Certainly Poettering was not advocating for the
complete laissez faire crap shoot that is Windows software installation.
 Far from it.

But after 20 years, the package manager idea certain has revealed many
shortcomings (in short, it sucks in many ways).  Package managers work
great for setting up the core distro, and also if the packages you need
are in the repos.  Distros like RHEL and Debian tend to have long-term
stability at the expense of not having recent versions of programs and
libraries.

Although I will note that one major up and coming Linux distribution
eschews package managers completely.  That is ChromeOS, and it is
compelling enough that the CoreOS server container OS is based on it.
They threw out package managers entirely and use image snapshots and
diffs. (I'm not advocating that solution, but it is something people
have tried to get around package manager problems).

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.   This is
how VirtualBox, Firefox, and LibreOffice all do it.  It works but it's
wasteful and they still have to target at least three to five different
distro/package manager combinations.

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.  As the prime example, take the OwnCloud, which
is, or was, in the official Ubuntu repos.  Do not use it! It's broken
and insecure, and no one is maintaining the package in the official
repos.  In fact OwnCloud.org asked Ubuntu to remove it entirely.  The
same thing has happened several times with Oracle Java and Ubuntu.
So we can't deny the curated package model does have issues and flaws.
PPAs address this for a fairly narrow audience (Ubuntu and derivatives
only).

This isn't saying that package managers don't work and don't have a
place.  They just have serious shortcomings that I believe are part of
what prevents major commercial players from even bothering to target
Linux (though the economics of software on Linux is probably the primary
reason).

> * LINUX: Red Hat-based *
> 1) As root, type: yum install postgresql python3-psycopg2
> 2) Install my program from blah blah blah

Yes that definitely works on Fedora more or less (if you're willing to
upgrade Fedora every year at least ensuring you have the latest and
greatest).  Step 2 is still a problem though.  Have to step outside the
package manager again.  Not ideal.

> (I don't have a Red Hat system handy to check, so the above examples
> might need to be tweaked. But you get the idea.)

Not merely tweaked.  It simply does not work on RHEL, any version.
Python3 can be installed from Software Collections (and that is somewhat
reasonable), but it won't integrate by default, so you can't use
#!/usr/bin/python3 in your apps by default without altering the system
paths.  Alternatively compile from source, but in many server rooms
that's strictly forbidden as it's not maintainable.

> Without actually going to any effort to build your own packages, you
> can still take advantage of one-command installation of all your
> dependencies. Without a package manager, you have to assemble them
> from all over the internet.

And again the ideas in the link I posted also enable all this and more,
and do it in a maintainable, logical way.  A natural extension of the
package manager.  I didn't expect anyone to actually read the post, as
interesting as it is, and thus I'm not disappointed that you dont' seem
to have read it.

> I call that a benefit :)

Yes, it is a benefit, but it also has serious drawbacks, with few easy
answers without making some major changes.

Will be interesting to see how it shakes out.  After 20 years I'm
certainly growing tired of how Linux software is distributed. I like
core stability, but I want to be able to use Python 3.5, or LibreOffice
4.3 (Linux Mint 17 does not have and will never have the latest
LibreOffice).  I don't want to have to upgrade my distro every six
months a la Fedora, and a true rolling distro just doesn't seem possible.

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

#87630 — Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain

On Tuesday 17 March 2015 12:46, Michael Torrie wrote:

> Python3 can be installed from Software Collections (and that is somewhat
> reasonable), but it won't integrate by default, so you can't use
> #!/usr/bin/python3 in your apps by default without altering the system
> paths.


If RedHat installs Python 3 in stupid places, that's a RedHat stupidity, not 
a problem with package management.

But, having said that, it's trivially easy to add /opt/python3 to your PATH, 
or add a symlink from /usr/bin/python3 to wherever RH puts it. Is this 
ideal? No, of course not. But it's hardly a road-block. It's not even a 
barrier. It's barely a bump.

I think it's awfully precious to rule out using python3 for an application 
because you need to make a couple of minor changes to the environment to 
make it work. I guess that boils down to the difference between developers 
who have the attitude "I'll just make it work, no matter what" and those 
with the attitude "If everything in the environment isn't completely 
perfect, no can do."




-- 
Steve

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

#87640 — Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain

On 03/17/2015 02:39 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 March 2015 12:46, Michael Torrie wrote:
> 
>> Python3 can be installed from Software Collections (and that is somewhat
>> reasonable), but it won't integrate by default, so you can't use
>> #!/usr/bin/python3 in your apps by default without altering the system
>> paths.
> 
> 
> If RedHat installs Python 3 in stupid places, that's a RedHat stupidity, not 
> a problem with package management.

Not quite.  When Python 3 is part of the standard repos, it goes in the
normal place and is in the path.

The point of Software Collections is to allow developers to play with
multiple versions of many kinds of software packages, some of which
overlap the system packages.  So Software Collections guarantees to
never conflict with the system versions of any of these things.  With
SCL I can install many versions of, say, Python 3 for testing purposes.

SCL was never intended to be a production model itself, near as I can
tell.  More of a playground for the developer.

> But, having said that, it's trivially easy to add /opt/python3 to your PATH, 
> or add a symlink from /usr/bin/python3 to wherever RH puts it. Is this 
> ideal? No, of course not. But it's hardly a road-block. It's not even a 
> barrier. It's barely a bump.

It is a barrier and a road block from a software distribution point of
view.  The solutions you offer are (manual tweaking of config files),
from a configuration management point of view, not too different from
compiling from source, which is not maintainable in any large-scale
server cluster.

Even for mere end users, it's not a very good model, depending on your
audience.  Sure we can blame the distro for not providing a decent
package.  But like Ben said, the conflict between the desire for
stability and the desire for the latest features often involves
difficult to solve contradictions.

> I think it's awfully precious to rule out using python3 for an application 
> because you need to make a couple of minor changes to the environment to 
> make it work. I guess that boils down to the difference between developers 
> who have the attitude "I'll just make it work, no matter what" and those 
> with the attitude "If everything in the environment isn't completely 
> perfect, no can do."

Not it's not precious at all.  If you are developing a large-scale
Django deployment, you're going to target versions that you know servers
support without any "minor changes to the environment."  Server space is
*very* conservative for good reason.  Every change has to be tracked so
it can be replicated and audited.  So we don't make random changes to
/etc/profile.  We don't install software from source generally, because
it would not be seen by the package manager, so security updates might
get missed.  It is a different world, at least when it's done right.

Like I say, starting with RHEL8, Python 3 will be the default, so we'll
likely see wider adoption by web apps using frameworks like Django.  And
Fedora has already designated Python 3 as the default Python for Fedora
22[1], so that means the transition is going to be more rapid.

[1] If they follow upstream advice, unlike Arch, /usr/bin/python will
still be Python 2 if the user specifically installs it from the
python2*.rpm packages.  The default Python packages will all be based on
Python 3, installed to /usr/bin/python3, and be installed by default.

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

#87747 — Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain

On 03/19/2015 04:16 PM, John Nagle wrote:
> On 3/16/2015 6:46 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
>> Since Python 3's adoption is directly impacted by package managers and
>> curated repos (or lack thereof), I feel justified in continuing this
>> thread just a bit farther.
> 
>    Since denying the problem didn't work, change the subject to
> allow blaming someone else.
> 
>    This is like dealing with an alcoholic.

I can't speak for others, but I certainly never denied your problems. I
can say that I changed the subject because I was taking that part of the
conversation off topic to another related but different subject that I
thought was of interest to some (and it was).  I'm sorry you feel
slighted by this diversion.

As to the issue of "denying your problems," certainly as distros catch
up, a lot more pressure to fix bugs and get libraries ported is
generated, and resources given to the endeavor by the likes of
Canonical, Red Hat and others.

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

#87773 — Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain

Le jeudi 19 mars 2015 23:37:29 UTC+1, Michael Torrie a écrit :
> On 03/19/2015 04:16 PM, John Nagle wrote:
> > On 3/16/2015 6:46 PM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> >> Since Python 3's adoption is directly impacted by package managers and
> >> curated repos (or lack thereof), I feel justified in continuing this
> >> thread just a bit farther.
> > 
> >    Since denying the problem didn't work, change the subject to
> > allow blaming someone else.
> > 
> >    This is like dealing with an alcoholic.
> 
> I can't speak for others, but I certainly never denied your problems. I
> can say that I changed the subject because I was taking that part of the
> conversation off topic to another related but different subject that I
> thought was of interest to some (and it was).  I'm sorry you feel
> slighted by this diversion.
> 
> As to the issue of "denying your problems," certainly as distros catch
> up, a lot more pressure to fix bugs and get libraries ported is
> generated, and resources given to the endeavor by the likes of
> Canonical, Red Hat and others.

Python 3.x is excellent.
Probably, the best language to show a
poor and buggy Unicode implementation
(Character Encoding Model).

When I think other computer languages or
Unicode related tools are all doing wrong.
That's terrible.

jmf

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

#87782 — Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain

On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 02:40:26 -0700 (PDT), wxjmfauth@gmail.com wrote:
>
>Python 3.x is excellent.
>Probably, the best language to show a
>poor and buggy Unicode implementation
>(Character Encoding Model).
>
>When I think other computer languages or
>Unicode related tools are all doing wrong.
>That's terrible.
>

Ah. So you are on the Python 3 unicode support sucks bandwagon too?

Bet you guys have a whole lot of fun there. Rave parties, trashing,
getting mad at something. Sounds fun.

Over here, on the Python 3 unicode support is just fine bandwagon, we
aren't so lucky. Things are just going smoothly, so they don't let us
party. We spend most of our time writting applications that don't
crash at runtime on the user hands because Python 3 is not permissive
and does force us to write well-formed encoding protocols.

Many times I though jumping to your side. Like I said, it sounds more
fun. But really, wife and kids need to eat.

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

#87783 — Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain

On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 15:59:01 +0100, Mario Figueiredo
<marfig@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Ah. So you are on the Python 3 unicode support sucks bandwagon too?
>
>Bet you guys have a whole lot of fun there. Rave parties, trashing,
>getting mad at something. Sounds fun.
>
>Over here, on the Python 3 unicode support is just fine bandwagon, we
>aren't so lucky. Things are just going smoothly, so they don't let us
>party. We spend most of our time writting applications that don't
>crash at runtime on the user hands because Python 3 is not permissive
>and does force us to write well-formed encoding protocols.
>
>Many times I though jumping to your side. Like I said, it sounds more
>fun. But really, wife and kids need to eat.


Forgot to mention:

At first it was crap. We couldn't really understand what the hell was
going on. WTF? We need to write more code now!? Screw this! We even
wrote a banner at the office: "Byte this Python 3!"

But we eventually, you know, adapted and shit. We just grew out of it.
Like I said, wife and kids need to eat.

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

#87785 — Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain

On 20/03/2015 14:59, Mario Figueiredo wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 02:40:26 -0700 (PDT), wxjmfauth@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Python 3.x is excellent.
>> Probably, the best language to show a
>> poor and buggy Unicode implementation
>> (Character Encoding Model).
>>
>> When I think other computer languages or
>> Unicode related tools are all doing wrong.
>> That's terrible.
>>
>
> Ah. So you are on the Python 3 unicode support sucks bandwagon too?
>
> Bet you guys have a whole lot of fun there. Rave parties, trashing,
> getting mad at something. Sounds fun.
>
> Over here, on the Python 3 unicode support is just fine bandwagon, we
> aren't so lucky. Things are just going smoothly, so they don't let us
> party. We spend most of our time writting applications that don't
> crash at runtime on the user hands because Python 3 is not permissive
> and does force us to write well-formed encoding protocols.
>
> Many times I though jumping to your side. Like I said, it sounds more
> fun. But really, wife and kids need to eat.
>

Please don't feed the RUE.

-- 
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]

#87786 — Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain

On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 2:42 AM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Please don't feed the RUE.

Yeah, you'll RUE the day you get sucked into a conversation with a troll...

ChrisA

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

#87793 — Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain

Le vendredi 20 mars 2015 15:59:16 UTC+1, Mario Figueiredo a écrit :
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 02:40:26 -0700 (PDT), wxjmfauth@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >Python 3.x is excellent.
> >Probably, the best language to show a
> >poor and buggy Unicode implementation
> >(Character Encoding Model).
> >
> >When I think other computer languages or
> >Unicode related tools are all doing wrong.
> >That's terrible.
> >
> 
> Ah. So you are on the Python 3 unicode support sucks bandwagon too?
> 
> Bet you guys have a whole lot of fun there. Rave parties, trashing,
> getting mad at something. Sounds fun.
> 
> Over here, on the Python 3 unicode support is just fine bandwagon, we
> aren't so lucky. Things are just going smoothly, so they don't let us
> party. We spend most of our time writting applications that don't
> crash at runtime on the user hands because Python 3 is not permissive
> and does force us to write well-formed encoding protocols.
> 
> Many times I though jumping to your side. Like I said, it sounds more
> fun. But really, wife and kids need to eat.

I will never refrain you or anybody to use Python.
But do not blame me if I'm using Python
for its bad Character Encoding Model.

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

#87590 — Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> wrote:
> But after 20 years, the package manager idea certain has revealed many
> shortcomings (in short, it sucks in many ways).  Package managers work
> great for setting up the core distro, and also if the packages you need
> are in the repos.  Distros like RHEL and Debian tend to have long-term
> stability at the expense of not having recent versions of programs and
> libraries.
>

AIUI, your main beef with the packaging system is, as you rightly
note, an inherent conflict between stability and currency. Very true.
RHEL especially, Debian to a somewhat lesser extent, and every OS that
has a curated package system, will run into that problem.

But the solution isn't necessarily to throw out the packaging system.
All you need is to expand it. I don't know how you do it with yum, but
with apt, you simply add something to /etc/apt/sources.list (or the .d
directory), grab your index files, and install. That's how I install
PostgreSQL on Debian Wheezy; the Debian repos ship Postgres 9.1, but
by simply adding the apt.postgresql.org repo, I can grab 9.4 using the
exact same system. Ubuntu's PPA system achieves the same thing, as
mentioned, but even without PPAs, you can still have multiple
repositories.

The hardest part is managing library versions, and that's always going
to be a problem. Sometimes the latest version of an application
demands a newer version of a library than you have, and if you upgrade
that library, you might need to upgrade a whole lot else, too, so you
may as well upgrade everything and call it a new version of the
distro.

The versioning problem is just as much an issue no matter how you try
to cope with it. Package managers can't magically solve everything,
but they can make a lot of jobs easier, so on that basis, I say
they're beneficial. We don't need a 100% solution to be able to make
use of a 90% solution.

ChrisA

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

#87596 — Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain

Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But after 20 years, the package manager idea certain has revealed many
>> shortcomings (in short, it sucks in many ways). ...
> The hardest part is managing library versions, and that's always going
> to be a problem. 

Have either of you tried Nixos or Guix yet?  I've been wanting to.  The
ideas sound intriguing from what I've seen so far.

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

#87602 — Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain

On 03/16/2015 08:45 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> But after 20 years, the package manager idea certain has revealed many
>>> shortcomings (in short, it sucks in many ways). ...
>> The hardest part is managing library versions, and that's always going
>> to be a problem. 
> 
> Have either of you tried Nixos or Guix yet?  I've been wanting to.  The
> ideas sound intriguing from what I've seen so far.

Haven't but I will take a look..

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

#87591 — Re: [OT] Weaknesses of distro package managers - was Re: Python 2 to 3 conversion - embrace the pain

On 03/16/2015 07:57 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> But the solution isn't necessarily to throw out the packaging system.
> All you need is to expand it. 

Yes.  And of course that's exactly what Poettering is talking about in
his paper.  Despite what many think of him, he's a deep thinker and it's
worth reading what he says about this.

> I don't know how you do it with yum, but
> with apt, you simply add something to /etc/apt/sources.list (or the .d
> directory), grab your index files, and install. That's how I install
> PostgreSQL on Debian Wheezy; the Debian repos ship Postgres 9.1, but
> by simply adding the apt.postgresql.org repo, I can grab 9.4 using the
> exact same system. Ubuntu's PPA system achieves the same thing, as
> mentioned, but even without PPAs, you can still have multiple
> repositories.

PPAs are problematic from a trust point of view.  They aren't a whole
lot better than installing random installers on windows.

> The hardest part is managing library versions, and that's always going
> to be a problem. Sometimes the latest version of an application
> demands a newer version of a library than you have, and if you upgrade
> that library, you might need to upgrade a whole lot else, too, so you
> may as well upgrade everything and call it a new version of the
> distro.

Again this is the core issue that the Poettering crew at RH is working
on.  A cross between images and OS X's framework system.

> The versioning problem is just as much an issue no matter how you try
> to cope with it. Package managers can't magically solve everything,
> but they can make a lot of jobs easier, so on that basis, I say
> they're beneficial. We don't need a 100% solution to be able to make
> use of a 90% solution.

I agree.

Though if I was a developer trying to ship a large package like
LibreOffice, I would be very frustrated though.  Certainly if I was a
commercial app developer, this is a huge stumbling block.

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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web