Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #11016

Re: Matplotlib 3.0 - update ok?

From	ghisvail@gmail.com
Newsgroups	linux.debian.maint.python
Subject	Re: Matplotlib 3.0 - update ok?
Date	2018-10-16 09:20 +0200
Message-ID	<wJrO1-1dS-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<wJihH-412-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <wJrbj-LD-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <wJrkZ-OP-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <wJruF-S0-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <wJrEl-1aA-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 09:00 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 07:55:40AM +0100, ghisvail@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > I suppose  the main module is still named "matplotlib" not
> > > > "matplotlib3" in version 3 onwards? So using python3-
> > > > matplotlib3
> > > > would
> > > > be a breach of policy.
> > > 
> > > Probably.
> > 
> > Described in Section 2.2 of the Debian Python policy.
> 
> Depending how heavy Steffen would volunteer to patch and also rename
> the
> module (which I would not consider a very sensible idea).

Which means future packages depending on matplotlib v3+ would have to
be manually patched to account for the renaming. Sounds impractical to
me.

> > > I'm not sure what might be the difference between:
> > > 
> > >    3.0.0 Stable version
> > >    2.2.3 LTS LTS version
> > > 
> > > We have some months left until freeze so may be right now it is
> > > not
> > > to
> > > late to package what upstream considers stable.
> > > 
> > > Kind regards
> > > 
> > >       Andreas.
> > > From the upstream homepage: "Matplotlib 3.0 is Python 3 only."
> > 
> > Afaik, Python 2 is still considered relevant for the Buster release
> > cycle. Hence why I am suggesting to wait for the next release cycle
> > before upgrading key scientific packages, such as matplotlib, to
> > Python
> > 3 only.
> 
> Right.  This would surely kick several scientific packages.
> 
> Kind regards
> 
>       Andreas. 

Indeed. Note that NumPy has already published plans to become Python 3
only in the near future, so the deprecation of Python 2 in the
scientific stack will happen eventually.

I just don't think it should be rushed into the Buster release cycle.

Ghis

Thread

Matplotlib 3.0 - update ok? Steffen Möller <steffen.moeller@uni-rostock.de> - 2018-10-15 23:10 +0200
  Re: Matplotlib 3.0 - update ok? ghisvail@gmail.com - 2018-10-16 08:40 +0200
    Re: Matplotlib 3.0 - update ok? Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2018-10-16 08:50 +0200
      Re: Matplotlib 3.0 - update ok? ghisvail@gmail.com - 2018-10-16 09:00 +0200
        Re: Matplotlib 3.0 - update ok? Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2018-10-16 09:10 +0200
          Re: Matplotlib 3.0 - update ok? ghisvail@gmail.com - 2018-10-16 09:20 +0200
            Re: Matplotlib 3.0 - update ok? Ole Streicher <olebole@debian.org> - 2018-10-16 10:00 +0200
              Re: Matplotlib 3.0 - update ok? ghisvail@gmail.com - 2018-10-16 10:30 +0200
                Re: Matplotlib 3.0 - update ok? Arto Jantunen <viiru@debian.org> - 2018-10-16 11:00 +0200
                Re: Matplotlib 3.0 - update ok? ghisvail@gmail.com - 2018-10-16 11:20 +0200
                Re: Matplotlib 3.0 - update ok? Arto Jantunen <viiru@debian.org> - 2018-10-16 11:30 +0200
                Re: Matplotlib 3.0 - update ok? Michael Hudson-Doyle <michael.hudson@canonical.com> - 2018-10-16 12:10 +0200
    Re: Matplotlib 3.0 - update ok? Steffen Möller <steffen.moeller@uni-rostock.de> - 2018-10-16 10:40 +0200
      Re: Matplotlib 3.0 - update ok? ghisvail@gmail.com - 2018-10-16 10:50 +0200
      Re: Matplotlib 3.0 - update ok? Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de> - 2018-10-16 10:50 +0200
        Re: Matplotlib 3.0 - update ok? ghisvail@gmail.com - 2018-10-16 11:10 +0200
  Re: Matplotlib 3.0 - update ok? "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org> - 2018-10-16 14:00 +0200
  Re: Matplotlib 3.0 - update ok? Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2018-10-16 14:40 +0200

csiph-web