Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #11026

Re: Matplotlib 3.0 - update ok?

From	Michael Hudson-Doyle <michael.hudson@canonical.com>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.maint.python
Subject	Re: Matplotlib 3.0 - update ok?
Date	2018-10-16 12:10 +0200
Message-ID	<wJusx-2Q9-13@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(5 earlier) <wJrO1-1dS-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <wJsqK-1qy-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <wJsTM-1Po-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <wJtmN-1YR-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <wJtGa-2kV-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

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

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 22:11, <ghisvail@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 11:45 +0300, Arto Jantunen wrote:
> > ghisvail@gmail.com writes:
> > > Don't get me wrong, I am all in favour for a modern stack,
> > > including
> > > Python 3.
> > >
> > > However, upgrading NumPy et al. to their Python 3 only versions,
> > > introducing new legacy packages for Python 2, and patching the
> > > large
> > > collection of packages relying on the Python 2 versions of these
> > > sounds
> > > like a lot of work for the time we have got left in the Buster
> > > release
> > > cycle.
> >
> > In my understanding there is no need to patch any of the reverse
> > dependencies. Currently there are binary packages called python-numpy
> > and python3-numpy, built from a source package called python-numpy.
> > In
> > my understanding the proposed change is to keep having the exact same
> > binary packages, just built from two different source packages
> > (python-numpy and python-numpy-legacy or whatever).
>
> Oh, I see what you mean.
>
> So you'd have:
>
> - src:python-numpy-legacy providing python-numpy (<2.0) only
> - src:python-numpy providing python3-numpy (>=2.0) only
>

This sort of thing has already happened for astroid, src:astroid builds
python3-astroid 2.0.4-2 and src:astroid2 builds python-astroid 1.6.5-2 (and
something similar for pylint).

Cheers,
mwh

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