Re: on keep providing python 2 packages
On 2016-08-19 at 13:42:52 +0300, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> 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).
>
> What’s the point of shipping the Python 2 version of that module then?
Speaking with the assumption that (as mentioned elsewhere in the thread)
the module is written in a way as to be potentially useful for other
users than the app.
As somebody who writes (and keeps running, see debops_) python code for
internal use targetting debian stable, I find that packaged modules are
extremely useful even if they aren't used as a dependency for some app
inside debian, and using them a much saner alternative than getting
dependencies with pip inside a virtualenv.
.. _debops: http://www.enricozini.org/blog/2014/debian/debops/
In this case, there is no real way to know whether people are using
python2 or python3 (except for hints from popcon, that aren't available
however is the python2 version doesn't exist in debian).
> In my opinion, we should neither encourage nor discourage shipping the
> Python 2 version, and let the maintainer make the decision.
I can imagine that there may be cases where adding a py2 version could mean
significant more work for the maintainer, and I can understand people
not being happy having to do that work for a legacy language that will
be removed in a few releases, but I don't thing it's reason enough not
to encourage shipping py2 versions in the vast majority of cases where
the effort required is low.
--
Elena ``of Valhalla''
Reply to: