Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!gothmog.csi.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Olivier Sallou Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: on keep providing python 2 packages Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 09:50:01 +0200 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: debian-python X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Fri Aug 19 07:42:01 2016 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-10 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, THREADTOPIC=2] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: NOT_IN_SBL_XBL_SPAMHAUS=-1.5 NOT_IN_BL_NJABL=-1.5 CL_IP_EQ_HELO_IP=-2 (check from: .irisa. - helo: .mail3-relais-sop.national.inria. - helo-domain: .inria.) FROM/MX_MATCHES_HELO(DOMAIN)=-2; rate: -7 X-Ironport-Av: E=Sophos;i="5.28,544,1464645600"; d="scan'208";a="190562338" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-IP: [131.254.68.55] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.0.9_GA_6191 (ZimbraWebClient - GC52 (Linux)/8.0.9_GA_6191) Thread-Topic: on keep providing python 2 packages Thread-Index: WUdB/zFK9D2TMWSeU0UNtP2qFjyZdQ== X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/14126 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/1076755089.25718613.1471592504135.JavaMail.zimbra@irisa.fr Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 42 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 09:41:44 +0200 (CEST) X-Original-Message-ID: <1076755089.25718613.1471592504135.JavaMail.zimbra@irisa.fr> X-Original-References: Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:8785 ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Sandro Tosi" > =C0: "debian-python" > Envoy=E9: Vendredi 19 Ao=FBt 2016 09:19:46 > Objet: on keep providing python 2 packages >=20 > I got a feeling we are somehow discouraging the introduction of > python2 package in unstable (it was also discussed at the BoF). Don't feel the same. After a try to push some python packages, there was cl= ear indication that python2 only packages are not wanted. But python 2+3 packages were not an issue at all. Python2 is indeed still the default interpreter and as such, if app/lib is = compatible, both should be delivered. Olivier >=20 > while i can see why we dont want to introduce new python2-only > package, i feel that just providing a py3k pkg while the module is > also py2 compatible is a disservice to our users: wether we like it or > not, python 2 is the de facto interpreter for python and not having a > module available will not just make everyone switch to py3k (i already > faced it a couple of times already, where i needed a module to extend > an already existing project, and it was not there) >=20 > does anyone else agrees with this view? should we clarify that, when > available, python2 modules must be provided (along with their py3k)? >=20 > apps/scripts are fine being py3k by default, but the underlying > modules has to be provided by for py2 if compatible. >=20 > -- > Sandro "morph" Tosi > My website: http://sandrotosi.me/ > Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi > G+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+SandroTosi >=20 >=20