Re: [Oneiric-Foundations-Topic]Python Goals
On 04/26/2011 08:50 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: Apologies for the long delayed response. On Apr 01, 2011, at 01:11 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Friday, April 01, 2011 12:58:37 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: Agreed. Can you elaborate on what experimental support for Python3 as the Python that is shipped on the various Ubuntu ISOs means to you? Does that mean no Python 2.7 on the ISO? Also, by experimental do you mean having a process for creating alternative CDs that have only Python 3.2 but not on the standard daily CDs? There is a lot of Python code in the Ubuntu insfrastructure. I'm not sure exactly what I meant by that, but here's an example: Ubiquity is written in Python. It's a reasonably complex program that is non- trivial to maintain and improve. It's also mission critical for Ubuntu. I would be really suprised if it was fully ported with no regressions in one cycle. In this case, I think experimental support would be a python3 branch that ~works, but may not be fully tested/have issues/or not be at feature parity so we wouldn't want to switch to it in the oneiric cycle. The goal would be to have it be mature enough during oneiric that in the P cycle we could switch to it early and have it land ~smoothly for the LTS. I know there are others. My impression is that most upstreams for core desktop packages support Python3. Mostly what we lack is packaging changes to support it. My expectation is that most of the challenge around a Python3 desktop in P will be around more peripheral modules/extensions and custom Ubuntu code. That shouldn't preclude shipping some Python3 stuff in oneiric if it's ready and we've got room on the relevant image. Does that help? It does, thanks. I wonder, with work going on in Launchpad to support derivatives, can we pervert that to create a Python 3 Ubuntu derivative that could be used for this experiment? It may not be fully functional, but I think it would be a great test and status tracker for how well our Python 3 efforts are going. which packages are affected, and what work is needed to get these packages even built? -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: [Oneiric-Foundations-Topic]Python Goals
On Friday, April 01, 2011 12:58:37 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: On Apr 01, 2011, at 12:50 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: For Python, I'd like to see us drop 2.6 and make 2.7 the default during the toolchain setup (and before the first autosync run). This will (obviously) need to be agreed befor UDS. +1 For Python 3, we should drop python3.1 at the same time. +1 For a developmental goal during the cycle I think we should shoot for at least experimental support for Python3 as the Python that is shipped on the various Ubuntu ISOs. There is a lot of upstream third party support starting to appear and the packaging infrastructure and policy for Python3 is maturing rapidly. At the UDS for Lucid we set a nominal goal of having Python3 desktops for the following LTS. If we're going to have a chance of accomplishing this at an acceptable level of risk for an LTS cycle we need to be close for oneric. Agreed. Can you elaborate on what experimental support for Python3 as the Python that is shipped on the various Ubuntu ISOs means to you? Does that mean no Python 2.7 on the ISO? Also, by experimental do you mean having a process for creating alternative CDs that have only Python 3.2 but not on the standard daily CDs? -Barry There is a lot of Python code in the Ubuntu insfrastructure. I'm not sure exactly what I meant by that, but here's an example: Ubiquity is written in Python. It's a reasonably complex program that is non- trivial to maintain and improve. It's also mission critical for Ubuntu. I would be really suprised if it was fully ported with no regressions in one cycle. In this case, I think experimental support would be a python3 branch that ~works, but may not be fully tested/have issues/or not be at feature parity so we wouldn't want to switch to it in the oneiric cycle. The goal would be to have it be mature enough during oneiric that in the P cycle we could switch to it early and have it land ~smoothly for the LTS. I know there are others. My impression is that most upstreams for core desktop packages support Python3. Mostly what we lack is packaging changes to support it. My expectation is that most of the challenge around a Python3 desktop in P will be around more peripheral modules/extensions and custom Ubuntu code. That shouldn't preclude shipping some Python3 stuff in oneiric if it's ready and we've got room on the relevant image. Does that help? Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
[Oneiric-Foundations-Topic]Python Goals
For Python, I'd like to see us drop 2.6 and make 2.7 the default during the toolchain setup (and before the first autosync run). This will (obviously) need to be agreed befor UDS. For Python 3, we should drop python3.1 at the same time. For a developmental goal during the cycle I think we should shoot for at least experimental support for Python3 as the Python that is shipped on the various Ubuntu ISOs. There is a lot of upstream third party support starting to appear and the packaging infrastructure and policy for Python3 is maturing rapidly. At the UDS for Lucid we set a nominal goal of having Python3 desktops for the following LTS. If we're going to have a chance of accomplishing this at an acceptable level of risk for an LTS cycle we need to be close for oneric. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
