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 alternative
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
On Aug 20, 2016, at 1:19 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> i'd like to hear the opinion of the dpmt admins and python maintainers
> on the OP matter: public module py2 mandatory support, or -in a
> boarder shape- to provide debian packages for all the versions of
> python an upstream public module suppor
[Sandro Tosi, 2016-08-20]
> i'd like to hear the opinion of the dpmt admins and python maintainers
> on the OP matter: public module py2 mandatory support, or -in a
> boarder shape- to provide debian packages for all the versions of
> python an upstream public module supports in its code.
IMO:
* a
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 05:42:24PM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> > anyway, why wouldnt you want to provide a python2 package if the code
> > supports it? if you got a py3k package working, it's usually
> > straightforward to have a py pkg.
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 05:42:24PM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> anyway, why wouldnt you want to provide a python2 package if the code
> supports it? if you got a py3k package working, it's usually
> straightforward to have a py pkg. Doing that i've found several issues
> with upsteam projects that
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> Hi Sandro,
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:49:25AM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> > For example, I have a module (which supports both Python 2 and 3), but
>> > the only user of this module is an app (which is Python 3 only).
>>
>> then this sh
On 2016-08-19 at 13:42:52 +0300, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> For example, I have a module (which supports both Python 2 and 3), but
> the only user of this module is an app (which is Python 3 only).
>
> What’s the point of shipping the Python 2 version of that module then?
Speaking with the assumpti
Hi Sandro,
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:49:25AM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> > For example, I have a module (which supports both Python 2 and 3), but
> > the only user of this module is an app (which is Python 3 only).
>
> then this should be an internal module, installed in /usr/share/
> and not imp
On Aug 19, 2016, at 08:19 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>I got a feeling we are somehow discouraging the introduction of
>python2 package in unstable (it was also discussed at the BoF).
Hi Sandro,
Just to clarify my own opinion, for *libraries* which upstream supports both
Python 2 and Python 3, we sho
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 08:19:46AM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> does anyone else agrees with this view? should we clarify that, when
>> available, python2 modules must be provided (along with their py3k)?
>
> I disagree with th
Hi all,
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 08:19:46AM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> does anyone else agrees with this view? should we clarify that, when
> available, python2 modules must be provided (along with their py3k)?
I disagree with the “must” wording.
For example, I have a module (which supports both
On 2016-08-19 08:19, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> does anyone else agrees with this view? should we clarify that, when
> available, python2 modules must be provided (along with their py3k)?
Yes.
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 08:19:46 +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> I got a feeling we are somehow discouraging the introduction of
> python2 package in unstable (it was also discussed at the BoF).
>
> while i can see why we dont want to introduce new python2-only
> package, i feel that just providing a
Hi,
2016-08-19 9:19 GMT+02:00 Sandro Tosi :
> does anyone else agrees with this view? should we clarify that, when
> available, python2 modules must be provided (along with their py3k)?
>
I agree. Nobody will move to Py3 because Debian doesn't have Py2 module.
--
Best regards
Ondřej Nový
Ema
- Mail original -
> De: "Sandro Tosi"
> À: "debian-python"
> Envoyé: Vendredi 19 Août 2016 09:19:46
> Objet: on keep providing python 2 packages
>
> I got a feeling we are somehow discouraging the introduction of
> python2 package in unstable (it was also discussed at the BoF).
Don't
16 matches
Mail list logo
