On 10.01.2018 17:06, Ole Streicher wrote: > Hi, > > I am the maintainer of the "python-astropy" package, that currently > creates packages for both Python 2 and Python 3. Both packages have a > number of reverse dependencies. > > Recently, upstream announced a new version 3.0 of astropy, which > supports Python 3 only, and I think of the best mid-term strategy: The > old version 2.0 is supported upstream for ~2 years, and I want to have a > smooth migration path. I checked the wiki, but could not find good > information about migration.
Currently discussed. See "Python2 EOL and moving towards Python3" on this ML. > I thought of a temporary package split: create a new source package > "astropy" that inherits of the current python-astropy package, but only > builds python3-astropy (and the utils + doc, which depend on > python3-astropy), and update this to version 3.0. Then I would remove > these binary packages from the python-astropy package. In parallel, I > would file bugs (severity: important) to remove the reverse dependencies > of the Python 2 packages (many of them are mine, but also may have > reverse dependencies). > > As long as there are substantial problems with the removal of the Python > 2 support, I then keep the "old" python-astropy package updated. Once > everything is figured out and we decide to finally kick out Python 2 > support (from Debian-Astro, or from Debian), I would set the remaining > bugs as RC, and (once they are solved) remove the "python-astropy" > package. > > Does this sound reasonable? And how should I do this technically? well, astropy is not such a mainstream package that I would mind removing some of it's reverse dependencies. If you want to add the additional pain having a separate Python2 source stack, go for it. I wouldn't want to do that myself. If not, just go ahead with Python3 after having identified the reverse dependencies which are not maintained by yourself. Matthias
