Re: Future of PyPy (not PyPy3) in Debian

2020-06-04 Thread stefanor
Hi Sandro (2020.06.05_00:00:30_+) > I'm now wondering: what should we do with the entire pypy ecosystem? Big picture: Upstream is continuing to support pypy (2.7) for the foreseeable future. I don't know what that will look like for stdlib support. But they need a 2.7 interpreter for the

Re: PEP-517/PEP-518 Support In Debian

2020-06-04 Thread Nicholas D Steeves
Hi Scott, Thank you for the quick reply! Scott Kitterman writes: > On Thursday, June 4, 2020 7:39:59 PM EDT Nicholas D Steeves wrote: >> Scott Kitterman writes: >> > On Monday, April 13, 2020 5:18:53 AM EDT Dmitry Shachnev wrote: >> >> Hi Scott! >> >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 06:31:57PM

Re: Future of PyPy (not PyPy3) in Debian

2020-06-04 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Thursday, June 4, 2020 8:00:30 PM EDT Sandro Tosi wrote: > Hello all, > it looks like i started a process that would require the removal of > several PyPy (as in pypy-* depending on the `pypy` package) packages > from the archive. > > I'm now wondering: what should we do with the entire pypy

Future of PyPy (not PyPy3) in Debian

2020-06-04 Thread Sandro Tosi
Hello all, it looks like i started a process that would require the removal of several PyPy (as in pypy-* depending on the `pypy` package) packages from the archive. I'm now wondering: what should we do with the entire pypy ecosystem? should we treat pypy-* packages like python-* ones and remove

Re: PEP-517/PEP-518 Support In Debian

2020-06-04 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Thursday, June 4, 2020 7:39:59 PM EDT Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > Hi, > > Scott Kitterman writes: > > On Monday, April 13, 2020 5:18:53 AM EDT Dmitry Shachnev wrote: > >> Hi Scott! > >> > >> On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 06:31:57PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> > This being roughly the

Re: PEP-517/PEP-518 Support In Debian

2020-06-04 Thread Nicholas D Steeves
Hi, Scott Kitterman writes: > On Monday, April 13, 2020 5:18:53 AM EDT Dmitry Shachnev wrote: >> Hi Scott! >> >> On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 06:31:57PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> > This being roughly the mid-point in the development cycle, I thought it >> > might be good to see where we are