On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 22:11, <ghisv...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 11:45 +0300, Arto Jantunen wrote: > > ghisv...@gmail.com writes: > > > Don't get me wrong, I am all in favour for a modern stack, > > > including > > > Python 3. > > > > > > However, upgrading NumPy et al. to their Python 3 only versions, > > > introducing new legacy packages for Python 2, and patching the > > > large > > > collection of packages relying on the Python 2 versions of these > > > sounds > > > like a lot of work for the time we have got left in the Buster > > > release > > > cycle. > > > > In my understanding there is no need to patch any of the reverse > > dependencies. Currently there are binary packages called python-numpy > > and python3-numpy, built from a source package called python-numpy. > > In > > my understanding the proposed change is to keep having the exact same > > binary packages, just built from two different source packages > > (python-numpy and python-numpy-legacy or whatever). > > Oh, I see what you mean. > > So you'd have: > > - src:python-numpy-legacy providing python-numpy (<2.0) only > - src:python-numpy providing python3-numpy (>=2.0) only >
This sort of thing has already happened for astroid, src:astroid builds python3-astroid 2.0.4-2 and src:astroid2 builds python-astroid 1.6.5-2 (and something similar for pylint). Cheers, mwh
