Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

[Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>]

Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes:

> I don't particularly agree, but if that's correct, then there's a
> large amount of change needed throughout the policy. These certainly
> aren't the only places this comes up.

Yes, that's likely because when the Debian Python policy was initially
drafted, there was no Python 3 anywhere close to entering Debian. So
“Python” and “Python 2” were less ambiguously conflated at that time.

Now that Python 2 and Python 3 are both commonly (and correctly)
referred to as “Python”, we need to take more care using the terms for
what we mean.

> Ambiguous or not, I think the policy is mostly consistent in using
> python and python3 vice python2 and python3.

Well that's another dimension of confusion :-) The term “python2” and
“python3” are named of commands, more than the names of languages.

I think you're right that this needs a general clean-up through the
policy document, to consistently use:

* “python2” to refer to that command only;

* “python3” to refer to that command only;

* “python” to refer to that command (and I'd suggest deprecating it
  where feasible);

* “Python 2” referring exclusively to that language version 2.x and no
  other versions of that language;

* “Python 3” referring exclusively to that language version 3.x and no
  other versions of that language;

* “Python” referring to the language implemented either as Python 2 or
  Python 3.

> At this point I think internal consistency is probably more important,
> so if someone wants to go through and make all the python's that
> should be python2, etc then please send in a patch.

I'll take that on. Send it to anywhere in particular? Or I can just send
it to this forum.

-- 
 \       “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “Well, I think |
  `\   so, but *where* do you stick the feather and call it macaroni?” |
_o__)                                           —_Pinky and The Brain_ |
Ben Finney