On 03/28/18 00:00, Pete Wright wrote: >> I'm not a python expert, but I understand that python 2.7 and python 3 >> are two slightly different languages not fully compatible with each >> other. >> >> I also understand(but have not gone into depth about this) that there is >> some resistance to python 3, with many developers being reluctant to >> move to version 3, for whatever reason(I imagine it's language design >> choices, but I really don't know) >> >> I'm stating this because it means such incompatibilities are not going >> away easily. It's not just a ports system problem, but an actual python >> ecosystem problem. >> >> Too say it in other words, python 2.7 isn't really just "the old >> version" and python 3 is not just "the new version". They have parallel >> lifes. > > I'm not %100 sure that's really an accurate assessment of the slow > uptake in Python3.
I'd like to make it clear I don't know the details, I just stated what I heard. I know this could not be accurate. > Regardless, the clock is ticking on the 2.x codebase > as it is reaching EOL status in 2020: > > https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0373/ > > Hopefully a solid deadline (which has already been pushed back) will > motivate developers to accelerate the task of migrating to py3 sooner > rather than later. Speaking strictly as the maintainer of the calibre port and having discovered just now about this deadline: I don't know what the calibre developer plans to do about this, I'm certainly unable to port calibre to python 3, so I will do the best to keep it working for as long as python 2.7 is available in the ports, or update the port to use python 3 once the upstream does port it to that version. -- Guido Falsi <[email protected]>
