Re: on keep providing python 2 packages

2016-08-21 Thread Mattia Rizzolo
On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 12:30:42AM +0200, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> * libraries in Stretch should support 2.X (i.e. add python-foo binary
>   packages) if that doesn't require too much additional work (py2dsp
>   still creates them). I'm OK with shipping 3.X only packages in NEW
>   packages, though. I'd not encourage people to do so but also not
>   forbid it,

Thanks for having some trust in your fellow package maintainers...

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: on keep providing python 2 packages

2016-08-21 Thread Barry Warsaw
FWIW,

On Aug 21, 2016, at 12:30 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:

>* all Python applications that support it, should use 3.X only *now*
>  (and do not bother with things like alternatives or "-3" suffixes /
>  "python3-" prefixes - at least for new packages; I'd even slowly start
>  removing alternatives, if it doesn't affect users),

+1

>* libraries in Stretch should support 2.X (i.e. add python-foo binary
>  packages) if that doesn't require too much additional work (py2dsp
>  still creates them). I'm OK with shipping 3.X only packages in NEW
>  packages, though. I'd not encourage people to do so but also not
>  forbid it,

I'd also say that it isn't worth *removing* Python 2.x support right now,
unless of course upstream drops it first.

>* we shouldn't accept 2.X only packages in Buster (Stretch+1, released ~2019)
>  unless they're a dependency of other packages, and start shipping 3.X only
>  packages where it makes sense (and I hope that decision will be mostly made
>  by upstreams by simply dropping 2.X support). We can drop some 2.X packages
>  (problematic to maintain? better alternatives available? low popcon?), but
>  do not do a mass removal yet,

+1

>* for Bullseye (Stretch+2, released ~2021) we should start dropping 2.X
>  packages, and maybe even remove 2.X interpreter,

+1 - remember that this will be 10-11 years after 2.7 was released!

>* Bullseye + 1 (~2023) is the one without 2.X interpreter and
>  python-foo packages for sure (and without /usr/bin/python symlink or
>  at least without Debian packages mentioning it, there should be a rule
>  to not speak about /usr/bin/python symlink! ;)

+1

>Note that Python upstream will stop supporting 2.X in ~2020 so about one
>year (and a half?) after releasing Buster.

As you point out, upstream will stop supporting Python 2.7 for normal bug
fixes in 2020, although I suspect it will be supported in security-fix
source-only mode for some years after that.  There has not be an official
announcement of that IIRC, and PEP 373 doesn't describe that, so it's just my
opinion.

Cheers,
-Barry


pgpyP28DxWK2S.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature