Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Nicholas D Steeves <nsteeves@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python
Subject: Re: Python Wheel Related Policy Change
Date: Fri, 01 May 2020 23:10:02 +0200
Message-ID: <A1L50-Az-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
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>
Old-Return-Path: <nsteeves@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Approved: robomod@news.nic.it
Lines: 68
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
Sender: robomod@news.nic.it
Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:12549

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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)
>>=20
>> > > That seems reasonable, although if we're going down that road, it
>> > > probably makes no sense for any of them to be universal.
>> >=20
>> > 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).
>>=20
>> I suspect pypy (2.7) will probably be around post-bullseye, unless
>> somebody funds pypy to migrate rpython to python 3.
>>=20
>> But yeah, we can change strategy later, if appropriate.
>
> Well, we have also talked about pypy vendoring as much of the python2.7=20
> package as it needs to build itself so we don't have to support it in the=
=20
> 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

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=eIdp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--