Re: Skip Python 2.6 and use 2.7 as default in Squeeze?
On Sep 01, 2010, at 10:17 AM, Paul Wise wrote: On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:33 AM, Marian Sigler mariansig...@gmail.com wrote: Given how much work is required to change the default Python, does it make sense to just skip Python 2.6 and use 2.7 as the default Python version in Squeeze? What has emerged here? I see that it won't be the default, but will it be at least included at all? As you can see here, python2.7 is only available in experimental: http://packages.qa.debian.org/p/python2.7.html As we are now in the squeeze freeze period it is unlikely that python2.7 will enter squeeze: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2010/08/msg0.html For most python users (I assume) it will be of great benefit already if just pure python without all those packages debian provides would be available (also) in version 2.7. backports.org exists for packages needed by users of stable/squeeze that weren't yet ready for inclusion in testing/squeeze at the time of the freeze. It would probably be a good idea to use it for python3.2 and python2.7 packages once squeeze is out. What do you think about merging my changes to make Python 2.7 a supported version in experimental, either before or after squeeze is released? I guess once squeeze is out, it should probably go in testing though. I'd love to get 2.7 supported in debian soon-ish. It'll make it much easier to coordinate changes I'll have to make anyway in natty. -Barry P.S. Are any of y'all coming to UDS-N in Orlando Florida USA next month? If so, I'd love to have a face-to-face session or two on how we can improve collaborations on Python development issues between the two distros. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Skip Python 2.6 and use 2.7 as default in Squeeze?
[Barry Warsaw, 2010-09-02] What do you think about merging my changes to make Python 2.7 a supported version in experimental, either before or after squeeze is released? I guess once squeeze is out, it should probably go in testing though. I'd do it already, but I'm waiting for release managers' answer to this¹ mail. If they'll tell us to use experimental instead of unstable, python2.7 in the list of supported Python versions would be problematic [¹] http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2010/08/msg01107.html -- Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100902184357.gm22...@piotro.eu
Re: Skip Python 2.6 and use 2.7 as default in Squeeze?
On Sep 02, 2010, at 08:43 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: [Barry Warsaw, 2010-09-02] What do you think about merging my changes to make Python 2.7 a supported version in experimental, either before or after squeeze is released? I guess once squeeze is out, it should probably go in testing though. I'd do it already, but I'm waiting for release managers' answer to this¹ mail. If they'll tell us to use experimental instead of unstable, python2.7 in the list of supported Python versions would be problematic [¹] http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2010/08/msg01107.html Cool. In the meantime, what's the best way to make my changes available to debian-python for review and/or merging? Right now, they're in these three Bazaar branches: https://code.launchpad.net/~barry/ubuntu/maverick/python-defaults/py27add https://code.launchpad.net/~barry/ubuntu/maverick/python-support/py27 https://code.launchpad.net/~barry/ubuntu/maverick/python-central/py27 Let me know so I can prepare for the inevitable :) -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Skip Python 2.6 and use 2.7 as default in Squeeze?
On Sep 01, 2010, at 12:33 AM, Marian Sigler wrote: Given how much work is required to change the default Python, does it make sense to just skip Python 2.6 and use 2.7 as the default Python version in Squeeze? What has emerged here? I see that it won't be the default, but will it be at least included at all? For most python users (I assume) it will be of great benefit already if just pure python without all those packages debian provides would be available (also) in version 2.7. Correct me if I'm wrong, but since Squeeze is frozen, it's too late to add support for Python 2.7, let alone make it the default. Technically, I think we're probably not yet ready to fully support Python 2.7 anyway, but we're perhaps not far. I wanted to get Python 2.7 as an officially supported version for Ubuntu 10.10, but that didn't happen either. It will be available, but not officially supported. I do expect that we'll turn on support very early in the Ubuntu 11.04 development cycle, and if things go well, I'll push for making it the default. In order to get here, I've done a lot of work analyzing, building, and fixing packages for Python 2.7, starting with the Ubuntu main repository and moving on to universe. We still have a handful of packages in main that ftbfs for 2.7, and a greater number in universe, but the total count is not insurmountable. There are still some outstanding questions though, such as how to test pure-Python packages which don't get built and we only find incompatibilities at install time. I'm working on some tools to gather these metrics and track development. All of this work should flow back into Debian, if it doesn't already come from there first. For example, numpy 1.4 fixes the ftbfs for Python 2.7. I basically did a sync from sid and built it in my Python 2.7 enabled chroot, then uploaded it to my Python 2.7 enabled PPA. Anything that I have to fix explicitly (e.g. the Subversion bindings) I'm trying to first work with upstream, and then get the changes into Debian, from which will flow into Ubuntu. For example, I have changes for python-defaults, python-support, and python-central to enable Python 2.7 support. Perhaps we can get those into unstable soon? I'm just now catching up after summer vacations, but plan on updating my tools and wiki pages to coordinate this effort. I'll interact mostly on this mailing list, but occasionally on ubuntu-devel for Ubuntu specific stuff (if there is anything). All help folks want to lend to the effort will be greatly appreciated! Cheers, -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Skip Python 2.6 and use 2.7 as default in Squeeze?
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:33 AM, Marian Sigler mariansig...@gmail.com wrote: Given how much work is required to change the default Python, does it make sense to just skip Python 2.6 and use 2.7 as the default Python version in Squeeze? What has emerged here? I see that it won't be the default, but will it be at least included at all? As you can see here, python2.7 is only available in experimental: http://packages.qa.debian.org/p/python2.7.html As we are now in the squeeze freeze period it is unlikely that python2.7 will enter squeeze: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2010/08/msg0.html For most python users (I assume) it will be of great benefit already if just pure python without all those packages debian provides would be available (also) in version 2.7. backports.org exists for packages needed by users of stable/squeeze that weren't yet ready for inclusion in testing/squeeze at the time of the freeze. It would probably be a good idea to use it for python3.2 and python2.7 packages once squeeze is out. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktimj9bkg7br6wirbu7ry5gk9d=f9kgkl3jmwv...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Skip Python 2.6 and use 2.7 as default in Squeeze?
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 3:19 AM, Lino Mastrodomenico l.mastrodomen...@gmail.com wrote: Given how much work is required to change the default Python, does it make sense to just skip Python 2.6 and use 2.7 as the default Python version in Squeeze? Does that mean that Debian could then be called a modern operating system? No wy. =) Although between 2.6, 2.7 and Python 3k, 2.7 seems a reasonable choice for development in 2010/2011. -- anatoly t. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/y2md34314101004290932ud822076fq7a1becbde9806...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Skip Python 2.6 and use 2.7 as default in Squeeze?
Moreover AFAICT 2.7 is the most compatible-with-the-previous-version Python release in the last 16 years did you hear about relative imports in 2.7? (enormous transition for us) -- Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100421124358.gq6...@piotro.eu
Re: Skip Python 2.6 and use 2.7 as default in Squeeze?
On Apr 21, 2010, at 02:43 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: Moreover AFAICT 2.7 is the most compatible-with-the-previous-version Python release in the last 16 years did you hear about relative imports in 2.7? (enormous transition for us) Are you sure about this? Despite what PEP 328 says, I'm not sure that change actually happened. I can find no reference to this change in Misc/NEWS on trunk, nor in the What's New for Python 2.7, and my own (limited) testing shows that absolute imports have not been enabled by default. I could be missing something of course; I'll double check with python-dev. -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Skip Python 2.6 and use 2.7 as default in Squeeze?
[Barry Warsaw, 2010-04-21] did you hear about relative imports in 2.7? (enormous transition for us) Are you sure about this? Despite what PEP 328 says, I'm not sure that change actually happened. I can find no reference to this change in Misc/NEWS on trunk, nor in the What's New for Python 2.7, and my own (limited) testing shows that absolute imports have not been enabled by default. I could be missing something of course; I'll double check with python-dev. should be easy to check (by creating 2 simple .py files and running them using python2.7 from experimental). I'll check it later tonight. -- Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100421135030.gr6...@piotro.eu
Re: Skip Python 2.6 and use 2.7 as default in Squeeze?
[Piotr Ożarowski, 2010-04-21] should be easy to check (by creating 2 simple .py files and running them using python2.7 from experimental). I'll check it later tonight. It's not enabled (fails only if I import absolute_import from __future__) -- Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Skip Python 2.6 and use 2.7 as default in Squeeze?
On Apr 21, 2010, at 08:33 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: [Piotr Ożarowski, 2010-04-21] should be easy to check (by creating 2 simple .py files and running them using python2.7 from experimental). I'll check it later tonight. It's not enabled (fails only if I import absolute_import from __future__) Right, thanks for confirming (also confirmed on python-dev). It won't make it into Python 2.7, so I've updated the PEP to remove the sentence stating that absolute imports would be enabled. Yay! One less thing to worry about during 2.6-2.7. :) -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Skip Python 2.6 and use 2.7 as default in Squeeze?
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:46:48 -0500 Kumar Appaiah wrote: But it would be nice to see Python 2.7 in Debian soon. :-) It's available in experimental (not the latest beta, though). But indeed it would be great to have the 2.6-2.7 transition started a little earlier than the 2.5-2.6 one :-) pgpFtHfNGFfti.pgp Description: PGP signature
Skip Python 2.6 and use 2.7 as default in Squeeze?
Given how much work is required to change the default Python, does it make sense to just skip Python 2.6 and use 2.7 as the default Python version in Squeeze? The glaring downside of this is that 2.7 hasn't yet been released, but a feature-complete beta is available and, given how big the test suite is nowadays, it's pretty stable. The final 2.7 should be released in June (see PEP 373 for the full schedule) which is, I guess, before the release of Squeeze. Python 2.7 is faster than 2.6 (in my limited tests from a few percents to more than 7 times faster, the latter with a small CPU-intensive math program), it has a few cool new toys, for many years in the future it will be THE Python 2 version (it's the last one) and, most importantly it has several new features to make the transition to Python 3 easier. Including it in Debian now should make many Python programmers happier in the next few years. Moreover AFAICT 2.7 is the most compatible-with-the-previous-version Python release in the last 16 years, so switching to it from 2.6 should be much less painful than the switch from 2.5 to 2.6 (again in my limited tests 2.7b1 can run without changes anything that ran on 2.6). And, of course, all the work done so far would not be wasted since the changes required are largely the same. TIA for any feedback to this crazy idea. -- Lino Mastrodomenico -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/z2icc93256f1004191719vd8d48523za77c14f3284e8...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Skip Python 2.6 and use 2.7 as default in Squeeze?
Hi Lino, Lino Mastrodomenico l.mastrodomen...@gmail.com (20/04/2010): Given how much work is required to change the default Python, does it make sense to just skip Python 2.6 and use 2.7 as the default Python version in Squeeze? Python 2.6 transition is already going on. The glaring downside of this is that 2.7 hasn't yet been released, but a feature-complete beta is available and, given how big the test suite is nowadays, it's pretty stable. The final 2.7 should be released in June (see PEP 373 for the full schedule) which is, I guess, before the release of Squeeze. Heard of what's called “freeze” in the release process? Hopefully, it will start before Python 2.7 is released. And the testsuite ensures basically nothing WRT Python Modules from other source packages. Python 2.7 is faster than 2.6 (in my limited tests from a few percents to more than 7 times faster, the latter with a small CPU-intensive math program), it has a few cool new toys, for many years in the future it will be THE Python 2 version (it's the last one) and, most importantly it has several new features to make the transition to Python 3 easier. For any software, new versions always have new shiny features and of course no regressions. Including it in Debian now should make many Python programmers happier in the next few years. Including it and making it the default are two different topics. TIA for any feedback to this crazy idea. You named it. :) Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Skip Python 2.6 and use 2.7 as default in Squeeze?
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 02:42:37AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Python 2.7 is faster than 2.6 (in my limited tests from a few percents to more than 7 times faster, the latter with a small CPU-intensive math program), it has a few cool new toys, for many years in the future it will be THE Python 2 version (it's the last one) and, most importantly it has several new features to make the transition to Python 3 easier. For any software, new versions always have new shiny features and of course no regressions. Of course, Cyril meant new regressions, I guess. ;-) Including it in Debian now should make many Python programmers happier in the next few years. Including it and making it the default are two different topics. TIA for any feedback to this crazy idea. You named it. :) And, JFTR, I'd go with Cyril's one-step-at-a-time approach, as would most other in the list, I'd guess. But it would be nice to see Python 2.7 in Debian soon. :-) Kumar -- Actually, typing random strings in the Finder does the equivalent of filename completion. -- Discussion on file completion vs. the Mac Finder signature.asc Description: Digital signature
