On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Dmitry Shachnev <mity...@debian.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 08:19:46AM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote: >> does anyone else agrees with this view? should we clarify that, when >> available, python2 modules must be provided (along with their py3k)? > > I disagree with the “must” wording.
i should have probably specified public modules > For example, I have a module (which supports both Python 2 and 3), but > the only user of this module is an app (which is Python 3 only). then this should be an internal module, installed in /usr/share/<pkg> and not importable via python -c "import <module>" > > What’s the point of shipping the Python 2 version of that module then? > > In my opinion, we should neither encourage nor discourage shipping the > Python 2 version, and let the maintainer make the decision. leaving the decision to the maintainer for public modules means we'll have py3k-only packages leaving python2 without a usable module, and if you need one then you file a bug, you wait for the maintainer to act on it, maybe you need it in stable and you have to backport/ask for it. i think we have to support python2 and python3 at the best we can, as we mandate to have py3k packages (https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ch-python3.html) i think we should extend the same level of support to python2, until it will be decided to drop that stack completely -- Sandro "morph" Tosi My website: http://sandrotosi.me/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi G+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+SandroTosi
