Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes:

> On Thursday, April 30, 2020 5:49:20 PM EDT Stefano Rivera wrote:
>> Hi Scott (2020.04.30_20:33:59_+0000)
>> > > That seems reasonable, although if we're going down that road, it
>> > > probably makes no sense for any of them to be universal.
>> > 
>> > If we were talking about maintaining this for multiple release cycles with
>> > lots of version divergence, I would agree.  Let's not do more than we have
>> > to until python2 is gone (whether it is before bullseye or after).
>> I suspect pypy (2.7) will probably be around post-bullseye, unless
>> somebody funds pypy to migrate rpython to python 3.
>> But yeah, we can change strategy later, if appropriate.
> Well, we have also talked about pypy vendoring as much of the python2.7 
> package as it needs to build itself so we don't have to support it in the 
> archive as an active interpreter, but that's a different discussion.

I think that discussion must have been before I joined the team :-) It's
only recently that I became aware of pypy, and I assumed it had been
discounted because it weakened the argument (and/or was bad for morale)
for the py2 removal initiative we saw in 2019.

I can't remember if it was on reddit or stackoverflow, but apparently
people are considering pypy 2.7 as a solution to their py2 technical

It makes sense that a vendoring/bootstrapping/dfsg-compliance issue was
the reason the avenue wasn't explored in Debian, and I'm happy to hear
that this was the reason pypy wasn't explored as an alternative--and not
my assumption.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to