Martin v. Löwis wrote: > I don't see the need to for PyPI. For packages (or "distributions", > to avoid confusion with Python packages), I see two options: > > a) provide a single release that supports both 2.x and 3.x. > The precise strategy to do so might vary. If one is going > for a single source version, have setup.py run 2to3 > (or perhaps 3to2). For dual-source packages, have setup.py > just install the one for the right version; setup.py itself > needs to be written so it runs on both versions (which is > easy to do). > b) switch to Python 3 at some point (i.e. burn your bridges). > > You seem to be implying that some projects may release separate > source distributions. I cannot imagine why somebody would want > to do that.
That's odd. I can't imagine why anybody would *not* want to do that. Given the number of issues 2to3 can't fix (because it would be too dangerous to guess), I certainly can't imagine a just-in-time porting solution that would work reliably. Making two releases means I can migrate once and only once and be done with it. Making a single release work on 2.x and 3.x means I have to keep all of the details of both Python 2 and 3 in my head all the time as I code? not to mention litter my codebase with "# the following ugly hack lets us work with Python 2 and 3" comments so someone else doesn't undo all my hard work when they run the tests on Python 3 but not 2? No thanks. My brain is too small. Robert Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
