On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 11:43:24PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > 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. Whether you call them tools or scripts, they're outside the archive. Python policy is the wrong place to try to set policy for them. > > 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"? I think replacing "applications" with "programs" solves the original concern, without this added paragraph. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
