Danny Milosavljevic <dan...@scratchpost.org> writes: > Hi, > >> The traceback2 module works on python3 as well. I don't think patching >> imports will be necessary? > > Maybe it works. However, I think it's silly to package a "traceback" > module for Python 3.5 which is a backport of the "traceback" module > included in the CPython 3.5 interpreter when we use the CPython 3.5 > interpreter in the first place.
There are other modules extracted from python3 and packaged for python2+3. "enum34", "contextlib2", etc. AFAICT traceback was added already in 3.0: https://docs.python.org/3.0/library/traceback.html > Same for python-linecache2. > > Therefore, I would have another patchset which adds them for Python 2 > only and patches them out otherwise (s/traceback2/traceback/g). If a module written for python3 imports "traceback2", that won't work anyway with the standard library since it's called just "traceback". I would much rather package a "superfluous" module, instead of conditionally patching packages to use the built-in for python3 only. > Adding them for Python 3.5 would just be asking for them to become > outdated for no reason (they are part of Python 3.5 and will update > with it - their origin is Python 3.5). > > That said, I'm happy that this is being discussed - I'm not sure what > the right way to go forward is. Me neither :-) but it's obviously something we need to tackle eventually. Copied in Hartmut, maybe he's got some insight? >>But I see we don't currently have traceback2, so I'm fine with 1.4.0 >>for now just to avoid packaging it. The rest LGTM, let's get this >>[python-testtools] in! > > OK! ...and the rest of this series ;-) I wonder if we should update scipy and numpy while at it. Thoughts?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
