On 11/28/2014 12:06 AM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: > On 27/11/14 12:09, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> On 11/27/2014 12:31 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: >>> >>>> On Nov 26, 2014, at 10:34 AM, Thomas Goirand <z...@debian.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I tried to package suds-jurko. I was first happy to see that >>>> there was some progress to make things work with Python 3. >>>> Unfortunately, the reality is that suds-jurko has many issues >>>> with Python 3. For example, it has many: >>>> >>>> except Exception, e: >>>> >>>> as well as many: >>>> >>>> raise Exception, 'Duplicate key %s found' % k >>>> >>>> This is clearly not Python3 code. I tried quickly to fix some >>>> of these issues, but as I fixed a few, others appear. >>>> >>>> So I wonder, what is the point of using suds-jurko, which is >>>> half-baked, and which will conflict with the suds package? >>>> >>> It looks like it uses 2to3 to become Python 3 compatible. > >> Outch! That's horrible. > >> I think it'd be best if someone spent some time on writing real >> code rather than using such a hack as 2to3. Thoughts anyone? > > That sounds very subjective. If upstream is able to support multiple > python versions from the same codebase, then I see no reason for them > to split the code into multiple branches and introduce additional > burden syncing fixes between those. > > /Ihar
Objectively, using 2to3 sux, and it's much better to fix the code, rather than using such a band-aid. It is possible to support multiple version of Python with a single code base. So many projects are able to do it, I don't see why suds would be any different. Cheers, Thomas _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
