Re: Removing some python3-* packages
On 3 July 2015 at 09:53, Ian Cordasco <graffatcolmingov@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Barry Warsaw <barry@debian.org> wrote:
>> As part of the 3.5 test rebuild I noticed an incompatibility with
>> python3-enum, which I reported upstream. The response was: there's actually
>> no reason to have a Python 3 version of enum in any version >= Python 3.4.
>> Since that's all we have now, maybe it makes more sense to just remove the
>> python3-enum package from Debian.
>>
>> There may be similar packages which are fairly straight backports of Python 3
>> packages. For those that are no longer necessary, what do you think about
>> removing the python3-* version of the binary package?
>>
>> It seems like a bit of a regression given that we want Python 3 versions of
>> our libraries, but in cases like this it probably makes sense.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>> -Barry
>
> Probably a silly question, but are other libraries like unittest2 also
> being packaged for python3? Another library is mock. That was included
> in the stdlib in 3.3. Is that being packaged for python3 on Debian as
> well? I know it's nice to have the libraries available on both, but
> mock for example stopped working on python3.4 since it's solely
> maintained in the stdlib now. It doesn't make sense to package that
> for both. (Keep in mind, I'm just an observer and I haven't checked if
> those examples are already packaged for Py3)
So, unittest2 is *explicitly* targeted at 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, 3.2, 2.7,
2.6. Its not 'unittest for 2.6', its unittest for not-running-from-hg.
Same for traceback2, linecache2, and shortly, when I get a day to fix
it up, mock.
All those IMO should remain packaged, because the stdlib is moving on
them, and folk like being able to use the new shiny without waiting
years.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins <rbtcollins@hp.com>
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
Reply to: