Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

Scott Kitterman writes: > On Tuesday, February 02, 2016 06:44:57 AM Ben Finney wrote: > > Ben Finney writes: > > > * Address all the language around Python 2 versus Python 3 versus > > > Python general, and re-order or re-word to focus

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

On Feb 16, 2016, at 11:54 AM, Paul Wise wrote: >I always thought it strange to put site- in /usr/local since >/usr/local already implies site/system-wide packages. Same for dist- >since /usr already implies distribution packages. For as long as I can remember, a from-source 'configure && make &&

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > I don't remember exactly why we called it 'site-packages' ... Thanks for the history :) I always thought it strange to put site- in /usr/local since /usr/local already implies site/system-wide packages. Same for dist- since /usr already

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

On Feb 15, 2016, at 07:42 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: >I don't remember exactly why we called it 'site-packages', but I believe it >was an evolution from the earlier ni.py module, which was where dotted module >paths first showed up in Python. And which had a 'site-python' directory, which was kept

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

Ben Finney writes: > * Address all the language around Python 2 versus Python 3 versus > Python general, and re-order or re-word to focus *primarily* on Python > 3, with Python 2 treated as the still-supported legacy system. > > I'm maintaining a Bazaar branch for

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 04:46:19 PM Ben Finney wrote: ... > Once these non-semantic changes are accepted I will begin work on the > second stage of semantic changes. ... OK. Those are all accepted. Barry Warsaw had done some changes in the -whl section so I made an attempt at merging

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

Scott Kitterman writes: > On Tuesday, January 26, 2016 04:46:19 PM Ben Finney wrote: > ... > > Once these non-semantic changes are accepted I will begin work on > > the second stage of semantic changes. > ... > > OK. Those are all accepted. Thank you, Scott! I'll

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

Scott Kitterman writes: > I should be able to get it reviewed and merged no later than Saturday > (probably Friday). Much appreciated, thanks for the response. -- \“When I was a baby I kept a diary. Recently I was re-reading | `\ it, it said ‘Day 1: Still

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

On January 26, 2016 10:32:57 PM EST, Ben Finney wrote: >Dmitry Shachnev writes: > >> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 04:46:19PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: >> > I'm planning to provide changes in two bundles: >> > >> > * Go through the whole document and

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

Hi Ben, On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 04:46:19PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > I'm planning to provide changes in two bundles: > > * Go through the whole document and tidy it up for consistency, source > style, markup, and language style. This should not change the meaning > of anything, but will

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

Dmitry Shachnev writes: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 04:46:19PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > > I'm planning to provide changes in two bundles: > > > > * Go through the whole document and tidy it up for consistency, > > source style, markup, and language style. This should not

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

Ben Finney writes: > Scott Kitterman writes: > > > At this point I think internal consistency is probably more > > important, so if someone wants to go through and make all the > > python's that should be python2, etc then please send in a

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

Ben Finney writes: > I'm planning to provide changes in two bundles: > > * Go through the whole document and tidy it up for consistency, source > style, markup, and language style. This should not change the meaning > of anything, but will change the wording of

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

Scott Kitterman writes: > On Sunday, January 24, 2016 04:58:26 PM Ben Finney wrote: > > Found it; the source document is ‘python-policy.sgml’ in the source > > VCS for ‘python3’. Currently that's a Bazaar repository at > >

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

On January 24, 2016 11:59:14 PM EST, Ben Finney wrote: >Scott Kitterman writes: > >> On Sunday, January 24, 2016 04:58:26 PM Ben Finney wrote: >> > Found it; the source document is ‘python-policy.sgml’ in the source >> > VCS for ‘python3’.

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

Thanks for taking this on Ben, On Jan 24, 2016, at 04:33 PM, Ben Finney wrote: >I think you're right that this needs a general clean-up through the >policy document, to consistently use: > >* “python2” to refer to that command only; > >* “python3” to refer to that command only; > >* “python” to

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

On Friday, January 22, 2016 05:55:19 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >I've taken a run through the current Python Policy to see where I think it > >needs to be updated for Stretch. > > Thanks Scott for the badly needed update. > > Some comments,

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 08:50:49 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Jan 23, 2016, at 03:38 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >Personally I seriously dislike the trend to call Python Python 2 (and I > >still thing approving a pep to invent /usr/bin/python2 because Arch went > >insane was a horrible

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

On Jan 23, 2016, at 03:38 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >Personally I seriously dislike the trend to call Python Python 2 (and I still >thing approving a pep to invent /usr/bin/python2 because Arch went insane was >a horrible idea). There's an earlier spot in the document where it says that

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

On Sunday, January 24, 2016 04:46:09 PM Ben Finney wrote: > Scott Kitterman writes: > > I've taken a run through the current Python Policy to see where I > > think it needs to be updated for Stretch. The updates largely fall > > into four categories: […] > > This is great

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

Scott Kitterman writes: > I don't particularly agree, but if that's correct, then there's a > large amount of change needed throughout the policy. These certainly > aren't the only places this comes up. Yes, that's likely because when the Debian Python policy was initially

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

On Sunday, January 24, 2016 04:58:26 PM Ben Finney wrote: > Ben Finney writes: > > Where is the Git (I assume?) repository you're using for VCS of this > > policy document? > > Found it; the source document is ‘python-policy.sgml’ in the source VCS > for ‘python3’.

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

Scott Kitterman writes: > I've taken a run through the current Python Policy to see where I > think it needs to be updated for Stretch. The updates largely fall > into four categories: […] This is great to see, thank you Scott. Where is the Git (I assume?) repository

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

On Sunday, January 24, 2016 04:33:55 PM Ben Finney wrote: > Scott Kitterman writes: > > I don't particularly agree, but if that's correct, then there's a > > large amount of change needed throughout the policy. These certainly > > aren't the only places this comes up. > >

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

Ben Finney writes: > Where is the Git (I assume?) repository you're using for VCS of this > policy document? Found it; the source document is ‘python-policy.sgml’ in the source VCS for ‘python3’. Currently that's a Bazaar repository at

Re: Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >I've taken a run through the current Python Policy to see where I think it >needs to be updated for Stretch. Thanks Scott for the badly needed update. Some comments, apologies for the lack of good quoting, or if I've read the diff

Python Policy: Things to consider for Stretch

I've taken a run through the current Python Policy to see where I think it needs to be updated for Stretch. The updates largely fall into four categories: 1. Update old examples 2. Clean up old policy test that no longer applies 3. Simplify things due to there only being one python version