Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #14891 > unrolled thread

Bug#1030530: Python 3.10 in bookworm

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.maint.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

  Bug#1030530: Python 3.10 in bookworm Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2023-02-05 15:00 +0100
    Re: Python 3.10 in bookworm Danial Behzadi دانیال بهزادی <dani.behzi@ubuntu.com> - 2023-02-07 07:00 +0100
      Re: Python 3.10 in bookworm Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2023-02-07 16:30 +0100

#14891 — Bug#1030530: Python 3.10 in bookworm

Our social contract #4 says "Our priorities are our users and free
software".  What benefits would having the python3.10 base packages in
bookworm bring for our users (as I point out, for some users, this is
a necessity) and what disadvantages would it bring (none that I can
think of)?  Why would we tell a whole bunch of our users: "Don't
upgrade to Debian 12 until all of the critical packages you use from
PyPI are upgraded to support Python 3.11, or fix those packages
yourself"?

And may I politely remind you, Thomas, that you are very
concerned about breaking things for people:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=973617#40
This is likely a far greater impact than the discussion there on many
more people.

Best wishes,

   Julian

On Sun, Feb 05, 2023 at 12:25:18PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> How about fixing the 3.11 issues if you hit them ? How about using Buster and 3.9 if 3.11 doesn't work (yet) for you ?
> 
> Thomas Goirand (zigo)
> On Feb 5, 2023 11:38, Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> wrote:
> >
> > Why is the current intention not to ship the python3.10 package in 
> > bookworm? 
> >
> > I was trying to run some experiments in a virtual environment a few 
> > days ago, and it turns out that several of the Python packages I 
> > needed do not yet run on Python 3.11.  I was saved by being able to 
> > run in a Python 3.10 venv and download all the required packages from 
> > PyPI.  If bookworm shipped without python3.10, I would not have been 
> > able to do my work.  Removing python3.10 from bookworm will seriously 
> > affect many of our users in a similar situation to me. 
> >
> > Best wishes, 
> >
> >    Julian 
> >
> > P.S. We should also fix #1036268 if we do keep python3.10 in bookworm; 
> > I'm happy to do an NMU if needed. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#14907 — Re: Python 3.10 in bookworm

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Does it worth trying to package pyenv for Debian? Ain't it against any rules?

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

#14908 — Re: Python 3.10 in bookworm

On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 12:31:23PM +0100, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote:
> Op Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 05:52:21AM +0000 schreef Danial Behzadi دانیال بهزادی:
> > Does it worth trying to package pyenv for Debian? Ain't it against any rules?
> 
> See "ITP pyenv" @ http://bugs.debian.org/978149 .

Oh, how embarrassing - I already knew about this software a year ago!

Best wishes,

   Julian

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.maint.python

csiph-web