On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 11:07:13 PM Matthias Klose wrote: > On 04/15/2015 10:27 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > > Heyya d-p, > > > > I'd like to send an email to d-d-a asking that project to consider no > > longer creating new Debian tools in Python 2. > > > > I'd like this to have the endorsement of the team, so, does anyone object > > to me asking people to not write new tools in Python 2 only (prefer > > alternative deps or porting), and only use Python 2 in very special > > curcumstances or for legacy codebases (perhaps a pitch to move to Python > > 3), along with a note that we plan to deprecate Python 2 when upstream > > support is gone (2020), which puts us on track for two cycles (Buster) > > > > > > I'll make note of a team which should exist to help with such porting, > > (I'm up to help with this) that was one of the items that came out of > > the PyCon chit-chat. I got the sense from the room that this would be > > OK, but just checking if anyone here has a substantive objection. > > > > If not, I'll send that out later on today/tomorow. > > sure, please could you also propose not to accept new packages which are > Python3 compatible upstream, but use Python2 in the packaging? Same thing > for modules when Python3 is supported upstream, but only the Python2 module > is packaged.
Do you expect the FTP Team to enforce this? If not them, who? While I agree with the idea, I don't think it's something that can be enforced more broadly than DPMT/PAPT. We can (and I thnk it's reasonable to say) that DPMT/PAPT won't accept such packages, but I don't think we can keep them out of the archive. Scott K
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
