On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 08:19:46 +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote: > I got a feeling we are somehow discouraging the introduction of > python2 package in unstable (it was also discussed at the BoF). > > 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. > Very much agree.
Cheers, Julien
