[Matthias Klose, 2018-09-25] > > how about generating dependencies on python2.7 and moving > > pycompile/pyclean there as well (this also solves pre-dependency issue) > > > >> - Not having a python package in bullseye (buster+1), but a > >> python2 package doesn't point to any "default" anymore. Many > >> users are installing just python, because it's the unversioned > >> package. So make it clear that this is another version, and > >> with having the choice of python2 and python3, most users will > >> install python3. > > > > same here > > > > additional question: why do you need for all that python2-doc, > > python2-minimal, python2-dev, libpython2-dev, libpython2-stdlib, > > python2-dbg and libpython2-dbg binary packages? > > yes, moving the symlinks to the 2.7 packages would be an option as well. But > I > don't see any difference why one or the other should be the preferred option.
If we start generating dependencies on python2 packages that are not available in Stretch, we'll have to rebuild these packages (with hardcoded dependencies) for backports. We'll also force unofficial package maintainers to do some changes (for no clear reason or benefit)