Re: favouring Python3 in the Debian policy
Am 07.05.2014 16:45, schrieb Matthias Klose: > Attached is a proposed change to the Debian Python policy to focus on Python3 > within the distribution. The intent is to document and start a large journey > towards one Python stack in Debian. This is unlikely to happen for jessie+1, > but > we should state the plan now so that it doesn't come later as a surprise. this is what I committed and uploaded in 2.7.6-1. Should cover all feedback from this thread. Matthias === modified file 'debian/python-policy.sgml' --- debian/python-policy.sgml 2013-05-22 02:12:02 + +++ debian/python-policy.sgml 2014-05-12 10:21:25 + @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ Scott Kitterman sc...@kitterman.com - version 0.9.4.2 + version 0.9.5 This document describes the packaging of Python within the @@ -42,8 +42,7 @@ - Copyright © 1999, 2001, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 - Software in the Public Interest + Copyright © 1999—2014 Software in the Public Interest This manual is free software; you can redistribute it and/or @@ -74,6 +73,58 @@ + + On the move to Python 3 + + Debian currently supports two Python stacks, one for Python 2 + and one for Python 3. The long term goal for Debian is to + reduce this to one stack, dropping the Python 2 stack at some + time. + http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0404/"; + name="PEP 404"> states that no more major Python 2 releases + are planned, although the last released major version 2.7 + will see some extended support, documented in + http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0466/"; + name="PEP 466">. + + + Packages in Debian should use Python 3 if Python 3 is + supported. New packages should use Python 3 from the initial + upload, new upstream versions for existing packages should + use Python 3 if the new upstream version supports it. + + + + + + Programs should use Python 3, and should not be packaged + for Python 2 as well. Python 3 should be used for the + packaging if the packaging scripts use Python. + + + + + Python libraries should be always packaged for Python 3 + if supported. Python 2 libraries should be packaged, if + applications found in the reverse dependencies are not + yet supported by Python 3. + + + + + Existing Python 2 libraries should not be dropped before + the last reverse dependency is removed. + + + + + + Python 3 (3.1) was released in June 2009, and is available in + the Debian 6.0 (squeeze) release (3.1), and in the Debian 7 + (wheezy) release (3.2). + + + Python Packaging @@ -117,7 +168,10 @@ The set of currently supported python versions can be found in - /usr/share/python/debian_defaults. This file is in + /usr/share/python/debian_defaults, the set of + currently supported python3 versions can be found + in /usr/share/python3/debian_defaults. These + files are in Python ConfigParser format and defines four variables in its DEFAULT section: default-version which is the current default Python runtime, supported-versions which is the set of runtimes
Re: suds (was: favouring Python3 in the Debian policy)
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 4:11 AM, Mathias Behrle wrote: > * Jordan Metzmeier: " Re: favouring Python3 in the Debian policy" (Wed, 7 May > 2014 21:55:20 -0500): > > Hello Jordan, > >> The jurko fork was the one I was working with when attempting the port >> to suds. I never made it to testing under python3. > > [...] > >> I consider debbugs to be broken, not suds. > > Thanks for your detailed explanations. > > Could you share, if you have any experiences with orginal suds compared to > suds-furko (or any of the other forks mentionned by Barry)? > > I don't expect http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/suds/trunk to be revived [1] > and > of course it would be preferable to have an actively maintained version of > suds > in Debian. suds-furko seems to be the most appropriate candidate [2]. If no > one > raises his hands or objects, I will try to do some tests and file the ITP. > My experience was no different than working with the original suds library. It might be better to replace our existing suds library with a fork rather than introduce the fork as a new package. Regards, Jordan Metzmeier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cad758rhvr1yq+gm+5+sxby19oab9eqz5yeus-nphconzp6j...@mail.gmail.com
suds (was: favouring Python3 in the Debian policy)
* Jordan Metzmeier: " Re: favouring Python3 in the Debian policy" (Wed, 7 May 2014 21:55:20 -0500): Hello Jordan, > The jurko fork was the one I was working with when attempting the port > to suds. I never made it to testing under python3. [...] > I consider debbugs to be broken, not suds. Thanks for your detailed explanations. Could you share, if you have any experiences with orginal suds compared to suds-furko (or any of the other forks mentionned by Barry)? I don't expect http://svn.fedorahosted.org/svn/suds/trunk to be revived [1] and of course it would be preferable to have an actively maintained version of suds in Debian. suds-furko seems to be the most appropriate candidate [2]. If no one raises his hands or objects, I will try to do some tests and file the ITP. Cheers, Mathias [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/suds/2013-July/002127.html [2] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7739613/python-soap-client-use-suds-or-something-else -- Mathias Behrle PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0x8405BBF6 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: favouring Python3 in the Debian policy
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > Attached is a proposed change to the Debian Python policy to focus on Python3 > within the distribution. The intent is to document and start a large journey > towards one Python stack in Debian. This is unlikely to happen for jessie+1, > but > we should state the plan now so that it doesn't come later as a surprise. I'd like to suggest: A bits from Debian Python mail on d-d-a mentioning this. lintian tests, pedantic level for now. -- 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: https://lists.debian.org/CAKTje6E5m6yJbFGDuzinuRVYqzraLGX+xT8R88xNPPP=eue...@mail.gmail.com
Re: favouring Python3 in the Debian policy
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On May 07, 2014, at 02:29 PM, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > >>This fork looks like it's actively maintained, and has a recent release on >>PyPI (as suds-jurko): >>https://bitbucket.org/jurko/suds > > There seems to be quite a few forks on PyPI: > > https://pypi.python.org/pypi?%3Aaction=search&term=suds&submit=search > > to name a few: > > suds-fc 0.4.1 5 Lightweight SOAP client > suds-jurko 0.6 5 Lightweight SOAP client (Jurko's fork) > suds-philpem 0.4.3 5 Lightweight SOAP client (philpem's > fork-and-merge) > suds-py3 1.0.0.05 Lightweight SOAP client > suds-vingd 0.4.35 Lightweight SOAP client (philpem's > fork-and-merge) > > > Does anybody know anything about these? Jurko's seems to claim Python 3 > compatibility on its Bitbucket page. > > -Barry > The jurko fork was the one I was working with when attempting the port to suds. I never made it to testing under python3. Regards, Jordan Metzmeier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cad758rikzxcqzoytdrsh+40sz4zoy9joggu1--ld9guecef...@mail.gmail.com
Re: favouring Python3 in the Debian policy
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: >> FWIW, while I think getting the python policy to recommend Python3 is a good >> step forward, I think it's more important that we make sure the base system >> is leading by example. As described on debian-devel[1], there seem to be >> some porting blockers before we can migrate from python to python3 in the >> standard install. >> >> [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/04/msg00784.html > > Ugh, suds strikes again. > > If I had more time to blow, I'd likely try a run at something SUDS API > compatible in Python 3. Won't happen any time soon for me, but it's > something I will eternally praise someone over. > > So many people have tried to forward-port the SUDS codebase, > apparently it's *bad*. I do not consider suds to be the issue here. Currently the python-debianbts library uses SOAPpy. I opted to attempt to port the codebase to suds rather than port SOAPpy to python3. I have worked with a multitude of SOAP libraries in a few different languages and I have found suds to be easy to use and very efficient in comparison to other options. If you want to see a *bad* SOAP library codebase, have a look at python-zsi. In order to even get started with the port, I had to write a WSDL. I was very surprised to find a SOAP service that didn't expose one. Luckily, some of the work had already been done for an Emacs plugin which I was able to use as a base. The XML I was unable to get suds to produce in a call was XML that I would have otherwise never expected to be correct for a SOAP request. Let's take the get_usertag() method as an example, which the documentation says takes an email address and a list of tags. This is what I expect with an array of something in SOAP (usually there is a wsdl to tell exactly what it expects): foo foo bar What debbugs expects: foo foo bar It doesn't care about the names of the tags, it only cares about order. Since the first example matches the SOAP specification for arrays and the later does not[1], I consider debbugs to be broken, not suds. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-2508/#_Toc478383522 Regards, Jordan Metzmeier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cad758rhesybhjhenzumk4y6o8qjean6skexbvfyqng5v3ky...@mail.gmail.com
Re: favouring Python3 in the Debian policy
On May 07, 2014, at 02:29 PM, Thomas Kluyver wrote: >This fork looks like it's actively maintained, and has a recent release on >PyPI (as suds-jurko): >https://bitbucket.org/jurko/suds There seems to be quite a few forks on PyPI: https://pypi.python.org/pypi?%3Aaction=search&term=suds&submit=search to name a few: suds-fc 0.4.1 5 Lightweight SOAP client suds-jurko 0.6 5 Lightweight SOAP client (Jurko's fork) suds-philpem 0.4.3 5 Lightweight SOAP client (philpem's fork-and-merge) suds-py3 1.0.0.05 Lightweight SOAP client suds-vingd 0.4.35 Lightweight SOAP client (philpem's fork-and-merge) Does anybody know anything about these? Jurko's seems to claim Python 3 compatibility on its Bitbucket page. -Barry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140507175920.55526...@anarchist.wooz.org
Re: favouring Python3 in the Debian policy
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 11:43:24PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > Am 07.05.2014 23:01, schrieb Steve Langasek: > > On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 10:15:37PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > >> Am 07.05.2014 17:27, schrieb Barry Warsaw: > + ++ + > Applications should use > Python3, and should not be + packaged for Python2 as well. + > > >>> Maybe also that system scripts written in Python should be Python 3 and > >>> not Python 2. I'd add the clarity just because I'm not sure folks > >>> think of such system scripts as "applications". > >> proposing a separate item. > >> Command line scripts, packaging tools, tools used by Debian outside > >> the archive, etc. should use Python3, and should not be packaged for > >> Python2. > > I don't think scripts "outside the archive" are in scope for the python > > policy; > thas was "tools outside the archive". Debian has some infrastructure > written in Python. I don't know if all of this is packaged and available > in the archive. Whether you call them tools or scripts, they're outside the archive. Python policy is the wrong place to try to set policy for them. > > and I don't think this is what Barry was referring to. I think he meant > > python commandline programs, which some people may not think of as being > > "applications"? > sure, is "commandline programs" clearer than "Command line scripts"? I think replacing "applications" with "programs" solves the original concern, without this added paragraph. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: favouring Python3 in the Debian policy
On May 07, 2014, at 11:43 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: >thas was "tools outside the archive". Debian has some infrastructure written >in Python. I don't know if all of this is packaged and available in the >archive. I'm personally less concerned about those than packages inside the archive. -Barry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140507175617.25ffb...@anarchist.wooz.org
Re: favouring Python3 in the Debian policy
On May 07, 2014, at 02:01 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: >I don't think scripts "outside the archive" are in scope for the python >policy; and I don't think this is what Barry was referring to. I think he >meant python commandline programs, which some people may not think of as >being "applications"? Right. -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: favouring Python3 in the Debian policy
Am 07.05.2014 23:01, schrieb Steve Langasek: > On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 10:15:37PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: >> Am 07.05.2014 17:27, schrieb Barry Warsaw: + ++ + Applications should use Python3, and should not be + packaged for Python2 as well. + > >>> Maybe also that system scripts written in Python should be Python 3 and >>> not Python 2. I'd add the clarity just because I'm not sure folks >>> think of such system scripts as "applications". > >> proposing a separate item. > >> Command line scripts, packaging tools, tools used by Debian outside >> the archive, etc. should use Python3, and should not be packaged for >> Python2. > > I don't think scripts "outside the archive" are in scope for the python > policy; thas was "tools outside the archive". Debian has some infrastructure written in Python. I don't know if all of this is packaged and available in the archive. > and I don't think this is what Barry was referring to. I think he meant > python commandline programs, which some people may not think of as being > "applications"? sure, is "commandline programs" clearer than "Command line scripts"? > FWIW, while I think getting the python policy to recommend Python3 is a > good step forward, I think it's more important that we make sure the base > system is leading by example. As described on debian-devel[1], there seem > to be some porting blockers before we can migrate from python to python3 in > the standard install. This is independent. Getting these issues fixed is a dead-end for any other migration of packages to Python3 (well, maybe except for OpenStack). There is no reason for package maintainers to convert to Python3 for other packages. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/536aa8fc.7030...@debian.org
Re: favouring Python3 in the Debian policy
On 7 May 2014 14:11, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > If I had more time to blow, I'd likely try a run at something SUDS API > compatible in Python 3. Won't happen any time soon for me, but it's > something I will eternally praise someone over. > > So many people have tried to forward-port the SUDS codebase, > apparently it's *bad*. > This fork looks like it's actively maintained, and has a recent release on PyPI (as suds-jurko): https://bitbucket.org/jurko/suds Thomas
Re: favouring Python3 in the Debian policy
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 10:15:37PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: >> Am 07.05.2014 17:27, schrieb Barry Warsaw: >> >> + >> >> + >> >> + >> >> +Applications should use Python3, and should not be >> >> +packaged for Python2 as well. >> >> + > >> > Maybe also that system scripts written in Python should be Python 3 and not >> > Python 2. I'd add the clarity just because I'm not sure folks think of >> > such >> > system scripts as "applications". > >> proposing a separate item. > >> >> Command line scripts, packaging tools, tools used by >> Debian outside the archive, etc. should use Python3, and >> should not be packaged for Python2. >> > > I don't think scripts "outside the archive" are in scope for the python > policy; and I don't think this is what Barry was referring to. I think he > meant python commandline programs, which some people may not think of as > being "applications"? > > FWIW, while I think getting the python policy to recommend Python3 is a good > step forward, I think it's more important that we make sure the base system > is leading by example. As described on debian-devel[1], there seem to be > some porting blockers before we can migrate from python to python3 in the > standard install. > > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/04/msg00784.html Ugh, suds strikes again. If I had more time to blow, I'd likely try a run at something SUDS API compatible in Python 3. Won't happen any time soon for me, but it's something I will eternally praise someone over. So many people have tried to forward-port the SUDS codebase, apparently it's *bad*. > -- > Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS > Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. > Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ > slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- All programmers are playwrights, and all computers are lousy actors. #define sizeof(x) rand() :wq -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAO6P2QR2qfJVofsTMZEarv1UUsV6Ky4HSUb7+X=j4j18bob...@mail.gmail.com
Re: favouring Python3 in the Debian policy
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 10:15:37PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > Am 07.05.2014 17:27, schrieb Barry Warsaw: > >> + > >> + > >> + > >> +Applications should use Python3, and should not be > >> +packaged for Python2 as well. > >> + > > Maybe also that system scripts written in Python should be Python 3 and not > > Python 2. I'd add the clarity just because I'm not sure folks think of such > > system scripts as "applications". > proposing a separate item. > > Command line scripts, packaging tools, tools used by > Debian outside the archive, etc. should use Python3, and > should not be packaged for Python2. > I don't think scripts "outside the archive" are in scope for the python policy; and I don't think this is what Barry was referring to. I think he meant python commandline programs, which some people may not think of as being "applications"? FWIW, while I think getting the python policy to recommend Python3 is a good step forward, I think it's more important that we make sure the base system is leading by example. As described on debian-devel[1], there seem to be some porting blockers before we can migrate from python to python3 in the standard install. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/04/msg00784.html -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: favouring Python3 in the Debian policy
On May 08, 2014, at 06:41 AM, Ben Finney wrote: >Can we converge on a single way to represent the names of these systems >in the document? Currently there seems to be “python3”, “Python3”, >“Python 3” used indiscriminately, without being clear why they would be >spelled differently like that. > >I'd prefer to have: > >* “Python” as the name of the Python system at no specific version; > >* “Python 2” and “Python 3” where the version does matter; And if more detail is necessary, "Python 3.4" or "Python 2.x". >* “python” or “python3” for the name of the runtime interpreter; If an interpreter path is required, "/usr/bin/python3", "/usr/bin/python2", or "/usr/bin/python3.4". >* “Python2” and “Python3” never used. +1 -Barry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140507165711.61d8a...@anarchist.wooz.org
Re: favouring Python3 in the Debian policy
Matthias Klose writes: > === modified file 'debian/python-policy.sgml' > --- debian/python-policy.sgml 2013-05-22 02:12:02 + > +++ debian/python-policy.sgml 2014-05-07 14:34:24 + […] > @@ -42,8 +42,7 @@ > > > > - Copyright © 1999, 2001, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 > - Software in the Public Interest > + Copyright © 1999-2014 Software in the Public Interest > > > This manual is free software; you can redistribute it and/or Minor nit: please use “1999–2014” for a numeric range (U+2013 EN DASH). > @@ -74,6 +73,57 @@ > > > > + > + On the move to Python3 > + > + Debian currently supports two Python stacks, one for Python2 > + and one for Python3. The long term goal for Debian is to > + reduce this to one stack, dropping the Python2 stack at some > + time. Can we converge on a single way to represent the names of these systems in the document? Currently there seems to be “python3”, “Python3”, “Python 3” used indiscriminately, without being clear why they would be spelled differently like that. I'd prefer to have: * “Python” as the name of the Python system at no specific version; * “Python 2” and “Python 3” where the version does matter; * “python” or “python3” for the name of the runtime interpreter; * “Python2” and “Python3” never used. That only applies to the plain text; it doesn't address names in markup, which are not part of the plain text. Some different set of names might make sense, but my larger point is that a policy document should be careful to use terminology consistently. > > The set of currently supported python versions can be found in > - /usr/share/python/debian_defaults. This file is in > + /usr/share/python/debian_defaults, the set of > + currently supported python3 versions can be found > + in /usr/share/python3/debian_defaults. These > + files are in This paragraph is always referring to specific major versions, so “The set of currently supported python versions” also needs to change to “The set of currently supported Python 2 versions”. Thanks for tackling this, Matthias. -- \“I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance | `\ any day.” —Douglas Adams | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85iophcoeb@benfinney.id.au
Re: favouring Python3 in the Debian policy
Am 07.05.2014 17:27, schrieb Barry Warsaw: >> + >> + >> + >> + Applications should use Python3, and should not be >> + packaged for Python2 as well. >> + > > Maybe also that system scripts written in Python should be Python 3 and not > Python 2. I'd add the clarity just because I'm not sure folks think of such > system scripts as "applications". proposing a separate item. Command line scripts, packaging tools, tools used by Debian outside the archive, etc. should use Python3, and should not be packaged for Python2. >> + >> + >> + >> + Python libraries should be always packaged for Python3 >> + if supported. Python2 libraries should be packaged, if >> + applications dound in the reverse dependencies are not > > s/dound/found/ fixed. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/536a9469.9090...@debian.org
Re: favouring Python3 in the Debian policy
On Wednesday, May 07, 2014 11:27:20 Barry Warsaw wrote: > Should we also update Appendix B to promote --buildsystem=pybuild or at > least reference it? It's a reasonably safe bet that almost anything needs update. Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1765802.AhhHbdc04b@scott-latitude-e6320
Re: favouring Python3 in the Debian policy
On May 07, 2014, at 04:45 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: >Attached is a proposed change to the Debian Python policy to focus on Python3 >within the distribution. The intent is to document and start a large journey >towards one Python stack in Debian. This is unlikely to happen for jessie+1, >but we should state the plan now so that it doesn't come later as a surprise. === modified file 'debian/python-policy.sgml' --- debian/python-policy.sgml 2013-05-22 02:12:02 + +++ debian/python-policy.sgml 2014-05-07 14:34:24 + > @@ -74,6 +73,57 @@ > > > > + > + On the move to Python3 > + > + Debian currently supports two Python stacks, one for Python2 > + and one for Python3. The long term goal for Debian is to > + reduce this to one stack, dropping the Python2 stack at some > + time. > + http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0404/"; > + name="PEP 404"> states that no more major Python2 releases > + are planned, although the last released major version 2.7 > + will see some extended support, documented in > + http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0466/"; > + name="PEP 466">. > + > + > + Packages in Debian should use Python3 if Python3 is > + supported. New packages should use Python3 from the initial > + upload, new upstream versions for existing packages should > + use Python3 if the new upstream version supports it. > + > + > + > + > + > + Applications should use Python3, and should not be > + packaged for Python2 as well. > + Maybe also that system scripts written in Python should be Python 3 and not Python 2. I'd add the clarity just because I'm not sure folks think of such system scripts as "applications". > + > + > + > + Python libraries should be always packaged for Python3 > + if supported. Python2 libraries should be packaged, if > + applications dound in the reverse dependencies are not s/dound/found/ > + yet supported by Python3. > + > + > + > + > + Existing Python2 libraries should not be dropped before > + the last reverse dependency is removed. > + > + > + > + > + > + Python3 (3.1) was released in June 2009, and is available in > + the Debian 6.0 (squeeze) release (3.1), and in the Debian 7 > + (wheezy) release (3.2). > + > + > + > >Python Packaging > > @@ -117,7 +167,10 @@ > > > The set of currently supported python versions can be found in > - /usr/share/python/debian_defaults. This file is in > + /usr/share/python/debian_defaults, the set of > + currently supported python3 versions can be found > + in /usr/share/python3/debian_defaults. These > + files are in > Python ConfigParser format and defines four variables in its > DEFAULT section: default-version which is the current default > Python runtime, supported-versions which is the set of runtimes Should we also update Appendix B to promote --buildsystem=pybuild or at least reference it? -Barry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140507112720.1850c...@anarchist.wooz.org
favouring Python3 in the Debian policy
Attached is a proposed change to the Debian Python policy to focus on Python3 within the distribution. The intent is to document and start a large journey towards one Python stack in Debian. This is unlikely to happen for jessie+1, but we should state the plan now so that it doesn't come later as a surprise. Matthias === modified file 'debian/python-policy.sgml' --- debian/python-policy.sgml 2013-05-22 02:12:02 + +++ debian/python-policy.sgml 2014-05-07 14:34:24 + @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ Scott Kitterman sc...@kitterman.com - version 0.9.4.2 + version 0.9.5 This document describes the packaging of Python within the @@ -42,8 +42,7 @@ - Copyright © 1999, 2001, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 - Software in the Public Interest + Copyright © 1999-2014 Software in the Public Interest This manual is free software; you can redistribute it and/or @@ -74,6 +73,57 @@ + + On the move to Python3 + + Debian currently supports two Python stacks, one for Python2 + and one for Python3. The long term goal for Debian is to + reduce this to one stack, dropping the Python2 stack at some + time. + http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0404/"; + name="PEP 404"> states that no more major Python2 releases + are planned, although the last released major version 2.7 + will see some extended support, documented in + http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0466/"; + name="PEP 466">. + + + Packages in Debian should use Python3 if Python3 is + supported. New packages should use Python3 from the initial + upload, new upstream versions for existing packages should + use Python3 if the new upstream version supports it. + + + + + + Applications should use Python3, and should not be + packaged for Python2 as well. + + + + + Python libraries should be always packaged for Python3 + if supported. Python2 libraries should be packaged, if + applications dound in the reverse dependencies are not + yet supported by Python3. + + + + + Existing Python2 libraries should not be dropped before + the last reverse dependency is removed. + + + + + + Python3 (3.1) was released in June 2009, and is available in + the Debian 6.0 (squeeze) release (3.1), and in the Debian 7 + (wheezy) release (3.2). + + + Python Packaging @@ -117,7 +167,10 @@ The set of currently supported python versions can be found in - /usr/share/python/debian_defaults. This file is in + /usr/share/python/debian_defaults, the set of + currently supported python3 versions can be found + in /usr/share/python3/debian_defaults. These + files are in Python ConfigParser format and defines four variables in its DEFAULT section: default-version which is the current default Python runtime, supported-versions which is the set of runtimes
