Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #12549
| From | Nicholas D Steeves <nsteeves@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.maint.python |
| Subject | Re: Python Wheel Related Policy Change |
| Date | 2020-05-01 23:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <A1L50-Az-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <A183E-11c-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <A1o8q-2w2-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <A1pea-38B-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <A1pQR-3BN-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw
Hi, Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes: > On Thursday, April 30, 2020 5:49:20 PM EDT Stefano Rivera wrote: >> Hi Scott (2020.04.30_20:33:59_+0000) >> >> > > That seems reasonable, although if we're going down that road, it >> > > probably makes no sense for any of them to be universal. >> > >> > If we were talking about maintaining this for multiple release cycles with >> > lots of version divergence, I would agree. Let's not do more than we have >> > to until python2 is gone (whether it is before bullseye or after). >> >> I suspect pypy (2.7) will probably be around post-bullseye, unless >> somebody funds pypy to migrate rpython to python 3. >> >> But yeah, we can change strategy later, if appropriate. > > Well, we have also talked about pypy vendoring as much of the python2.7 > package as it needs to build itself so we don't have to support it in the > archive as an active interpreter, but that's a different discussion. > I think that discussion must have been before I joined the team :-) It's only recently that I became aware of pypy, and I assumed it had been discounted because it weakened the argument (and/or was bad for morale) for the py2 removal initiative we saw in 2019. I can't remember if it was on reddit or stackoverflow, but apparently people are considering pypy 2.7 as a solution to their py2 technical debt. It makes sense that a vendoring/bootstrapping/dfsg-compliance issue was the reason the avenue wasn't explored in Debian, and I'm happy to hear that this was the reason pypy wasn't explored as an alternative--and not my assumption. Thanks, Nicholas
Back to linux.debian.maint.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Python Wheel Related Policy Change Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-04-30 05:30 +0200
Re: Python Wheel Related Policy Change Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> - 2020-04-30 09:30 +0200
Re: Python Wheel Related Policy Change Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-04-30 12:00 +0200
Re: Python Wheel Related Policy Change Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-04-30 18:30 +0200
Re: Python Wheel Related Policy Change Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2020-04-30 20:40 +0200
Re: Python Wheel Related Policy Change Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-04-30 22:40 +0200
Re: Python Wheel Related Policy Change Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2020-04-30 23:50 +0200
Re: Python Wheel Related Policy Change Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-05-01 00:30 +0200
Re: Python Wheel Related Policy Change Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2020-05-01 22:50 +0200
Re: Python Wheel Related Policy Change Nicholas D Steeves <nsteeves@gmail.com> - 2020-05-01 23:10 +0200
csiph-web