Am 07.05.2014 23:01, schrieb Steve Langasek: > On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 10:15:37PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: >> Am 07.05.2014 17:27, schrieb Barry Warsaw: >>>> + <p><enumlist> + <item> + <p> + Applications >>>> should use >>>> Python3, and should not be + packaged for Python2 as well. + >>>> </p> > >>> Maybe also that system scripts written in Python should be Python 3 and >>> not Python 2. I'd add the clarity just because I'm not sure folks >>> think of such system scripts as "applications". > >> proposing a separate item. > >> <p> Command line scripts, packaging tools, tools used by Debian outside >> the archive, etc. should use Python3, and should not be packaged for >> Python2. </p> > > I don't think scripts "outside the archive" are in scope for the python > policy;
thas was "tools outside the archive". Debian has some infrastructure written in Python. I don't know if all of this is packaged and available in the archive. > and I don't think this is what Barry was referring to. I think he meant > python commandline programs, which some people may not think of as being > "applications"? sure, is "commandline programs" clearer than "Command line scripts"? > FWIW, while I think getting the python policy to recommend Python3 is a > good step forward, I think it's more important that we make sure the base > system is leading by example. As described on debian-devel[1], there seem > to be some porting blockers before we can migrate from python to python3 in > the standard install. This is independent. Getting these issues fixed is a dead-end for any other migration of packages to Python3 (well, maybe except for OpenStack). There is no reason for package maintainers to convert to Python3 for other packages. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/536aa8fc.7030...@debian.org
