----- Mail original ----- > De: "Sandro Tosi" <mo...@debian.org> > À: "debian-python" <debian-python@lists.debian.org> > Envoyé: Vendredi 19 Août 2016 09:19:46 > Objet: on keep providing python 2 packages > > I got a feeling we are somehow discouraging the introduction of > python2 package in unstable (it was also discussed at the BoF).
Don't feel the same. After a try to push some python packages, there was clear indication that python2 only packages are not wanted. But python 2+3 packages were not an issue at all. Python2 is indeed still the default interpreter and as such, if app/lib is compatible, both should be delivered. Olivier > > while i can see why we dont want to introduce new python2-only > package, i feel that just providing a py3k pkg while the module is > also py2 compatible is a disservice to our users: wether we like it or > not, python 2 is the de facto interpreter for python and not having a > module available will not just make everyone switch to py3k (i already > faced it a couple of times already, where i needed a module to extend > an already existing project, and it was not there) > > does anyone else agrees with this view? should we clarify that, when > available, python2 modules must be provided (along with their py3k)? > > apps/scripts are fine being py3k by default, but the underlying > modules has to be provided by for py2 if compatible. > > -- > Sandro "morph" Tosi > My website: http://sandrotosi.me/ > Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi > G+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+SandroTosi > >
