Re: on keep providing python 2 packages
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Dmitry Shachnev <mitya57@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 08:19:46AM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> does anyone else agrees with this view? should we clarify that, when
>> available, python2 modules must be provided (along with their py3k)?
>
> I disagree with the “must” wording.
i should have probably specified public modules
> For example, I have a module (which supports both Python 2 and 3), but
> the only user of this module is an app (which is Python 3 only).
then this should be an internal module, installed in /usr/share/<pkg>
and not importable via python -c "import <module>"
>
> What’s the point of shipping the Python 2 version of that module then?
>
> In my opinion, we should neither encourage nor discourage shipping the
> Python 2 version, and let the maintainer make the decision.
leaving the decision to the maintainer for public modules means we'll
have py3k-only packages leaving python2 without a usable module, and
if you need one then you file a bug, you wait for the maintainer to
act on it, maybe you need it in stable and you have to backport/ask
for it.
i think we have to support python2 and python3 at the best we can, as
we mandate to have py3k packages
(https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ch-python3.html)
i think we should extend the same level of support to python2, until
it will be decided to drop that stack completely
--
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: