Re: on keep providing python 2 packages
----- Mail original -----
> De: "Sandro Tosi" <morph@debian.org>
> À: "debian-python" <debian-python@lists.debian.org>
> Envoyé: Vendredi 19 Août 2016 09:19:46
> Objet: on keep providing python 2 packages
>
> 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 clear 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
>
> 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)
>
> does anyone else agrees with this view? should we clarify that, when
> available, python2 modules must be provided (along with their py3k)?
>
> apps/scripts are fine being py3k by default, but the underlying
> modules has to be provided by for py2 if compatible.
>
> --
> Sandro "morph" Tosi
> My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
> Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
> G+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+SandroTosi
>
>
Reply to: