Brian May writes:
> I just noticed that Ubuntu plan to drop Python 2.7 completely - from
> default installs at least
That's a pretty important modifier!
Ubuntu does not yet plan to drop Python 2.7 completely. Rather, the
current plan is to ensure no *dependencies on* Python 2.7 in the default
On 2017-04-04 08:21, Brian May wrote:
> I would suggest that Buster have Python 2.7, however we only support 3rd
> party libraries where it is practical to do so. Any library that has
> dropped Python 2.7 support upstream, is not practical for us to support
> in Python2. Anything that depends on s
Vincent Bernat writes:
> On the current subject, I also agree we should not drop prematurely
> packages targeted to Python 2. It is likely the support will be extended
> past 2020, at least by distributions with a 10-year support.
RHEL 7 will be supported until 2024.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wik
❦ 2 avril 2017 09:45 +0100, Ghislain Vaillant :
>>> it's just a few lines down in the changelog:
>>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=829744 (it is kinda
>>> sad that there was no discussion with the python team from the lintian
>>> maintainer before accepting and merging it, e
❦ 2 avril 2017 10:21 +0100, Chris Lamb :
>> > On the current subject, I also agree we should not drop prematurely
>> > packages targeted to Python 2.
>
> The Lintian tag in question does not suggest maintainers should be
> removing existing Python 2 support from packages.
>
> It merely suggests
Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> > On the current subject, I also agree we should not drop prematurely
> > packages targeted to Python 2.
The Lintian tag in question does not suggest maintainers should be
removing existing Python 2 support from packages.
It merely suggests that you should think twice
On 02/04/17 08:39, Vincent Bernat wrote:
❦ 1 avril 2017 19:42 -0400, Sandro Tosi :
It's not at all clear where [1] came from. The lintian changelog [3] does not
give a bug reference and I couldn't find a bug.
it's just a few lines down in the changelog:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bug
❦ 1 avril 2017 19:42 -0400, Sandro Tosi :
>> It's not at all clear where [1] came from. The lintian changelog [3] does
>> not
>> give a bug reference and I couldn't find a bug.
>
> it's just a few lines down in the changelog:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=829744 (it is k
On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Saturday, April 01, 2017 05:12:38 PM Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
>> On Sat, 2017-04-01 at 15:55 +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> > On April 1, 2017 3:42:50 AM EDT, Ghislain Vaillant
> wrote:
>> > > ...
>> > >
>> > > How so? Buster will not
On Saturday, April 01, 2017 05:12:38 PM Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-04-01 at 15:55 +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On April 1, 2017 3:42:50 AM EDT, Ghislain Vaillant
wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > How so? Buster will not be supporting Python 2, so the narrative of
> > > having new so
On Sat, 2017-04-01 at 15:55 +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> On April 1, 2017 3:42:50 AM EDT, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > How so? Buster will not be supporting Python 2, so the narrative of
> > having new source packages only provide Python 3 binary packages is
> > totally justifie
On April 1, 2017 3:42:50 AM EDT, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
>...
>
>How so? Buster will not be supporting Python 2, so the narrative of
>having new source packages only provide Python 3 binary packages is
>totally justified.
What makes you think this is true?
As far as I know, Python 2 will be a
12 matches
Mail list logo
