Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Thomas Goirand Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: Python 3.11, bytecode and new internals Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 17:10:01 +0100 Message-ID: References: X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Tue Nov 22 16:01:27 2022 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.005 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.515, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, MURPHY_DRUGS_REL8=0.02, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_DKIM_WELCOMELIST=-0.01, USER_IN_DKIM_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.0 Content-Language: en-US Organization: Debian Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Debian-User: zigo X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/20497 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/c53da537-1b7a-3eb7-b533-b7e05cefcd14@debian.org Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 40 Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 17:01:03 +0100 X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-References: <6a68f118-391b-2e81-c325-3148a0970ef8@debian.org> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:14637 On 11/22/22 10:59, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 09:22:05AM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote: >>> this, 100 times >> >> I very much don't agree. I think it's going pretty well, and the number of >> breakage isn't high. We just need a little bit of effort to make it in good >> enough shape. >> [...] >> Now, out of *many* of my packages, only a very few broke. Complicated >> packages like Eventlet for example, just worked. Others had upstream patches >> I applied. And I am in the opinion that we should go ahead and make 3.11 the >> default. > > If there are people with the expertise to help upstream update > bytecode and parso (and probably several other low-level packages) for > 3.11 so that the software that depends on them works with 3.11, then > fine. (And it is a non-trivial update, AFAICT.) But until then, I'd > be very reluctant to make 3.11 the default. Have you tried this PR? https://github.com/MatthieuDartiailh/bytecode/pull/107 > I haven't decided what to do with packages which now FTBFS under 3.11 > because of this. Should we just let them fall out of testing (that > certainly includes spyder, and quite possibly ipython as well)? > Or should we mark them as X-Python3-Version: << 3.11 so they can stay in > testing as long as Python 3.10 is the default? I don't think this is the way. > If we make 3.11 the > default, these packages will likely not be in bookworm, which might > upset our users even more. We're not there yet. We have until January to fix, and we haven't decided yet if 3.11 will be the default. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)