Am Sonntag, den 26.01.2020, 14:53 +0100 schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys: > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 8:21 PM David Kastrup < > d...@gnu.org > > wrote: > > > > 1) Adapt the build system to find and require Python 3. > > > > patch: > > > > https://codereview.appspot.com/545370043 > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) The largest part of the switch is running 2to3 which is now able to > > > > handle the rest of the conversion automatically. For reference, changes > > > > for current 'master' are here: > > > > https://codereview.appspot.com/573340043 > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) Fix-up two places in the scripts afterwards: > > > > 3a) Remove the call to sys.setdefaultencoding which doesn't exist in > > > > Python 3.x (and is only available right now because of a dirty hack). > > > > 3b) Replace cgi.escape by html.escape. While not strictly needed, I > > > > think we should include this change because they removed cgi.escape in > > > > Python 3.8 after only deprecating it in Python 3.2. The replacement > > > > html.escape is only available since that Python 3.2, so we can't do > > > > this before switching. > > > > patch: > > > > https://codereview.appspot.com/561270043 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One point worth discussing is the future minimum version of Python 3.x. > > > > In the patch, I'm proposing Python 3.5 because it will allow us to > > > > address a few deprecation warnings, especially about module 'imp'. > > > > It should be available in most Linux distributions: > > > > * CentOS 7 provides Python 3.6 since some minor releases > > > > * Debian 9 (Stretch) has packages for Python 3.5, Debian 10 (Buster) > > > > even for Python 3.6 > > > > * Ubuntu 16.04 LTS has Python 3.5, version 18.04 LTS has Python 3.6 > > > > > > > > Debian 8 (Jessie) only has Python 3.4, but even its LTS support will > > > > end next June (2020-06). Would it be acceptable to drop support for > > > > this distribution building 'master'? > > > > On the GUB side, I already added a spec for Python 3.7.4 (also for > > > > Windows via binary packages) and this worked successfully in September. > > > > Is there a major distribution missing that doesn't provide at least > > > > Python 3.5? > > > > > > > > Let me know what you think! > > > > > > So far, I've only received a single (positive) response off-list and a > > > bit of feedback on the posted patches. What do others think? > > > To make this explicit: The proposal is to drop support for Python 2 > > > (now EOL), requiring everyone wishing to build LilyPond 'master' to > > > have an appropriate version of Python 3 available. This should be > > > sufficiently easy (see above), but I'd like to have consensus on this. > > > > When we switch over GUB, we also need to switch over the 2.20 branch. > > It's not just master that is affected. > > But we only need to switch GUB to py3 when we package 2.21 with GUB. > We could kick this problem down the road until we really need a GUB > build of 2.21, which may well be a few months in the future, or never > if we decide to move to some other packaging mechanism (cf. the > discussion of Docker/Windows) > > I don't think it's reasonable for us to ask Jonas to also package > python3 for GUB as a precondition to getting his patches in.
I'm going to start by quoting myself: > > > > On the GUB side, I already added a spec for Python 3.7.4 (also for > > > > Windows via binary packages) and this worked successfully in September. So even if you don't think it's needed, I already did. Even though I would fully support switching away from GUB! What David is concerned about (as far as I understand) is that we need to modify the spec for LilyPond to require the new python3 package as a dependency. This will (obviously) not work for packaging 2.20. Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
