On 23/01/2019 17:11, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev wrote:
> On 23/01/2019 16:37, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote:
>> On 01/23/2019 02:43 AM, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev wrote:
>>
>>> I understand the changes I have made to the python modules can lead to some
>>> instability and I hope it is not too much an inconvenience. I think it is
>>> worth it to get rid as much as possible of P2.
>>
>> I agree that minimizing P2 is desirable, but there are a lot of packages that
>> still use P2. Right now we reference P2 79 times.
>>
>
> See ticket #11549: going slowly but steadily :)
>
Actually, there are 15 packages with python2 deemed as required (I plan to
investigate those first, but before that, I wanted to get rid of python2 in
the jhalfs tools)+ 3 python modules. And there are 4 packages with python2
deemed as recommended + 6 python modules.
The problem when a dependency on python2 is optional is that it may be two
different things:
- P2 is required for some optional functionalities
- Everything can use P3, but P2 could optionally be used
I've also noticed that upstream has been very active lately making python
scripts compatible with both P2 and P3, so that allowing to use P3 often
amounts to replace #!/usr/bin/{, env}python with #!/usr/bin{, env}/python3.
Pierre
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
