Re: Wheezy plans
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 21:19, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Friday, October 15, 2010 05:45:24 pm Piotr Ożarowski wrote: >> FYI: [I already mentioned that on #debian-python and in other places, >> but it deserves a mail to debian-python as well] >> >> I think that we should support Python 2.7 and Python 3.2 only in Wheezy. >> >> Python 2.7 is the last version from 2.X series and Python 2.8 will never >> be released upstream. Python 3.X is the future, but it's too soon to >> drop 2.X in Wheezy, maybe in Wheezy+1... > > > Or Wheezy +2. I think the transition to Python 3 will be a long one. That's overly pessimistic. I'm on the other end of extreme: Wheezy CAN release with Py3k as default version. There's a lot of porting efforts going on, and Debian would be heroic to be one of the long term releases (early 2013 Wheezy release?) to make it happen. Even if there's just 50% library coverage, that's more than a good enough reason to switch. -- blog: http://tshepang.tumblr.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktikh+ztkbtzhhr=x1cztww0ddrtmyypvhwsrz...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Wheezy plans
Le lundi 18 octobre 2010 à 15:21 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe a écrit : > That's overly pessimistic. I'm on the other end of extreme: Wheezy CAN > release with Py3k as default version. There's a lot of porting efforts > going on, and Debian would be heroic to be one of the long term > releases (early 2013 Wheezy release?) to make it happen. Even if > there's just 50% library coverage, that's more than a good enough > reason to switch. There’s nothing like a Python 3 “switch”. It is an incompatible interpreter, that’s all. If you mean “port all the scripts and applications of the default installation from python to python3”, then that’s a goal that could be achieved for wheezy. Cheers, -- .''`. : :' : “You would need to ask a lawyer if you don't know `. `' that a handshake of course makes a valid contract.” `--- J???rg Schilling -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1287416031.5646.1.ca...@meh
Package relationships for python debug packages
Howdy all, What relationship should be declared between a binary ‘python-foo-dbg’ package and the ‘python-dbg’ package? My search-fu must be weak today. I remember a discussion somewhere regarding Python extensions in C and the resulting ‘python-foo-dbg’ package. I can't remember the rationale, but the consensus was not what I expected. Should the binary package ‘Depends: python-dbg’, or should it instead ‘Recommends: python-dbg’? What's the rationale? -- \ “I cannot conceive that anybody will require multiplications at | `\ the rate of 40,000 or even 4,000 per hour …” —F. H. Wales, 1936 | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87aamaudi0@benfinney.id.au
