On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 02:08:00PM -0500, John W. O'Brien wrote: > Hello FreeBSD Python, > > One of the most common problems I encounter with python3 > interoperability is when the concurrent option is needed and can be > trivially enabled. There is a growing list of bugs where this, on a > individual port basis, has been fixed ([0], [1]), is in progress ([2], > [3]), or is in my queue and perhaps others' to submit ([4]). On the > other hand, there are lots of ports for which concurrent is a no-op, and > lots more that don't support python3 at all meaning that concurrent has > little to no chance to cause harm. > > What I propose is to enable the concurrent behavior by default and to > provide a feature to disable it when necessary.
This would be very welcome. Personally I only use python 3. Python 2 is just installed for the ports that require it. There also seems to be a trend of separate py3-* ports. This is sometimes a much better solution than trying to make a single port support python 2 and 3. (I've been looking for a way to do this with matplotlib, but haven't succeeded.) But looking forward, it might be a better idea to make py2-* ports for legacy stuff that doesn't support python 3. But that will probalby have to wait until the ports tree is ready to move to default to python 3. > I welcome supportive and dissenting comments as well as cautionary > remarks about the likely pitfalls of pursuing this. > > <snark> > While it would be tempting to call the new feature something > unflattering like "i_hate_python3" or "archaic_upstream" or > "regressive", the most natural name is probably just "noconcurrent". > </snark> :-) Roland -- R.F.Smith http://rsmith.home.xs4all.nl/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 5753 3324 1661 B0FE 8D93 FCED 40F6 D5DC A38A 33E0 (keyID: A38A33E0)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
