Hi, Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> writes: > On Thursday, April 30, 2020 5:49:20 PM EDT Stefano Rivera wrote: >> Hi Scott (2020.04.30_20:33:59_+0000) >> >> > > That seems reasonable, although if we're going down that road, it >> > > probably makes no sense for any of them to be universal. >> > >> > If we were talking about maintaining this for multiple release cycles with >> > lots of version divergence, I would agree. Let's not do more than we have >> > to until python2 is gone (whether it is before bullseye or after). >> >> I suspect pypy (2.7) will probably be around post-bullseye, unless >> somebody funds pypy to migrate rpython to python 3. >> >> But yeah, we can change strategy later, if appropriate. > > Well, we have also talked about pypy vendoring as much of the python2.7 > package as it needs to build itself so we don't have to support it in the > archive as an active interpreter, but that's a different discussion. > I think that discussion must have been before I joined the team :-) It's only recently that I became aware of pypy, and I assumed it had been discounted because it weakened the argument (and/or was bad for morale) for the py2 removal initiative we saw in 2019. I can't remember if it was on reddit or stackoverflow, but apparently people are considering pypy 2.7 as a solution to their py2 technical debt. It makes sense that a vendoring/bootstrapping/dfsg-compliance issue was the reason the avenue wasn't explored in Debian, and I'm happy to hear that this was the reason pypy wasn't explored as an alternative--and not my assumption. Thanks, Nicholas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature