I am appending the following two sections to the python policy chapter 2,
documenting what currently is in testing. There are different opinions, no
perfect solutions, and if we disagree, we should delegate the final decision
whether to include or to not include the binary packages
On 17.09.20 15:26, Matthias Klose wrote:
> If there is too much disagreement about the
> python-is-python3 package, then I plan to run it via the CTTE, and ask for an
> advice how to move on.
FWIW and IMHO that's a reasonable compromise.
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
signature.asc
Description:
On 9/17/20 3:04 PM, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote:
> Hi Matthias, others,
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020, at 15:26, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> As written in [1], bullseye will not see unversioned python packages and the
>> unversioned python command being built from the python-defaults package.
>>
>> It seems
Hi Matthias, others,
On Thu, Jul 9, 2020, at 15:26, Matthias Klose wrote:
> As written in [1], bullseye will not see unversioned python packages and the
> unversioned python command being built from the python-defaults package.
>
> It seems to be a little bit more controversial what should
On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 10:35:03AM +0200, deba...@debian.org wrote:
> > Yup, Arch does. From the wiki: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Python
> >
> > Any program requiring Python 2 needs to point to /usr/bin/python2, instead
> > of
> > /usr/bin/python, which points to Python 3.
>
> I
On 2020-07-18 10:26, Sebastian Humenda wrote:
> Rene Engelhard schrieb am 18.07.2020, 8:26 +0200:
> >Do some distros set /usr/bin/python to python 3?
>
> Yup, Arch does. From the wiki: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Python
>
> Any program requiring Python 2 needs to point to
Hi
Rene Engelhard schrieb am 18.07.2020, 8:26 +0200:
>Am 14.07.20 um 11:00 schrieb Piotr Ożarowski:
>> FTR: I didn't change my mind. /usr/bin/python is still used outside
>> Debian packages, in /usr/local/bin scripts and applications and I
>> strongly disagree to touch it.
>
>Unfortunately (at
Hi,
Am 14.07.20 um 11:00 schrieb Piotr Ożarowski:
> FTR: I didn't change my mind. /usr/bin/python is still used outside
> Debian packages, in /usr/local/bin scripts and applications and I
> strongly disagree to touch it.
Unfortunately (at least if I remember correctly I came up with an
example
On 7/16/20 6:03 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> it is my opinion that that's what we should do: not ship `python` at
> all and have users/packagers/developers use either python2 or python3
> as needed, and not to reintroduce `python` at a later time.
I agree.
It's trivial for anyone to manually "fix"
> It seems to be a little bit more controversial what should happen to the
> python
> command in the long term. Some people argue that python should never point to
> python3, because it's incompatible,
> however Debian will have difficulties to
> explain that decision to users who start with
On 7/9/20 9:31 PM, Ondrej Novy wrote:
> * keep "python" command pointing to python2.7 if I'm upgrading
> buster->bullseye with python2.7 installed. We are going to keep
> python2.7 interpreter for bullseye, so don't break old "python" command
> for third-parties apps/scripts/etc. (install
Piotr Ożarowski:
> FTR: I didn't change my mind. /usr/bin/python is still used outside
> Debian packages, in /usr/local/bin scripts and applications and I
> strongly disagree to touch it.
Sometimes breaking things can be helpful. If someone is not aware that
something still requires Python
FTR: I didn't change my mind. /usr/bin/python is still used outside
Debian packages, in /usr/local/bin scripts and applications and I
strongly disagree to touch it.
--
GPG: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645
Hi,
po 13. 7. 2020 v 19:21 odesílatel Matthias Klose napsal:
> On 7/13/20 6:23 PM, Fabrice BAUZAC-STEHLY wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Another solution would be to simply use the update-alternatives system
> > to manage /usr/bin/python. python3 would have a higher priority than
> > python2. Users
On 7/13/20 6:23 PM, Fabrice BAUZAC-STEHLY wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Another solution would be to simply use the update-alternatives system
> to manage /usr/bin/python. python3 would have a higher priority than
> python2. Users would still have the possibility to switch
> /usr/bin/python to python2
Hi,
Another solution would be to simply use the update-alternatives system
to manage /usr/bin/python. python3 would have a higher priority than
python2. Users would still have the possibility to switch
/usr/bin/python to python2 explicitly if they require it...
--
Fabrice BAUZAC-STEHLY
PGP
Ondrej Novy:
> Hi,
>
> čt 9. 7. 2020 v 15:27 odesílatel Matthias Klose napsal:
>
>> Describing here a solution which is implemented for Ubuntu focal (20.04
>> LTS). A
>> new source package what-is-python (-perl-dont-hurt-me) ships binary
>> packages
>> python-is-python2,
Hi,
čt 9. 7. 2020 v 15:27 odesílatel Matthias Klose napsal:
> Describing here a solution which is implemented for Ubuntu focal (20.04
> LTS). A
> new source package what-is-python (-perl-dont-hurt-me) ships binary
> packages
> python-is-python2, python-dev-is-python2, python-is-python3 and
>
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 04:55:33PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> I don't follow your logic there. Why is it hard to explain? Python
> was a programming language, and its last interpreter (2.7) is no
> longer developed or supported. Python3 (formerly Python3000) is also
> a programming language,
On 2020-07-09 15:26:47 +0200 (+0200), Matthias Klose wrote:
> As written in [1], bullseye will not see unversioned python
> packages and the unversioned python command being built from the
> python-defaults package.
>
> It seems to be a little bit more controversial what should happen
> to the
As written in [1], bullseye will not see unversioned python packages and the
unversioned python command being built from the python-defaults package.
It seems to be a little bit more controversial what should happen to the python
command in the long term. Some people argue that python should
21 matches
Mail list logo
