Request for sponsored upload of tinyarray
Hello, I believe tinyarray[1] is ready for a sponsored upload. I have fixed the two remaining issues with the packaging according to policy: - The salsa repository no longer contains upstream history. - pristine-tar is used. I would be grateful if someone could upload the package or let me know if problems persist. Thanks Christoph [1] https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/modules/python-tinyarray signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: The python command in Debian
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 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 Python3 and are not aware of >> the 2 >> to 3 transition. So yes, in the long term, Debian should have a python >> command >> again. >> >> One solution could be not to ship the python command in bullseye, forcing >> users >> to adjust their local installations. This has the advantage that the error >> of >> an unknown interpreter should be pretty clear. But leaves users without a >> python command for the next two years until bullseye+1. >> >> 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 >> python-dev-is-python3. The python-is-python2 package provides the python >> package, such that packages that still depend on python are not removed on a >> distro upgrade. On new installs, python-is-python3 is not installed by >> default, >> but the user gets a hint from command-not-found to install the package if he >> tries to run python. Package dependencies on the new four binary packages >> have >> to be disallowed in the Python policy. Note that such a package including >> the >> Provides should only be uploaded once all dependencies on the unversioned >> python >> packages are gone. > > So I see that the removal of `/usr/bin/python`-shipped-by-python-defaults has > happened as planned. Thanks! > > I've just got a friend ask me about what to do to get /usr/bin/python to > point at python3; Do you have any plan of uploading what-is-python for use in > bullseye, at least without the python-is-python2 Provides for python as a > first step (to keep the current "breakage")? > > In any case I think the python packaging policy at > https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ch-python.html > should get an update to match the current status quo related to > /usr/bin/python; My friend looked at it and were confused not to find a > /usr/bin/python anymore. the what-is-python package is now in NEW. Yes, the policy needs an update. I'll put that on my TODO list. 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. Matthias
Re: The python command in Debian
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 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 Python3 and are not aware of > the 2 > to 3 transition. So yes, in the long term, Debian should have a python > command > again. > > One solution could be not to ship the python command in bullseye, forcing > users > to adjust their local installations. This has the advantage that the error of > an unknown interpreter should be pretty clear. But leaves users without a > python command for the next two years until bullseye+1. > > 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 > python-dev-is-python3. The python-is-python2 package provides the python > package, such that packages that still depend on python are not removed on a > distro upgrade. On new installs, python-is-python3 is not installed by > default, > but the user gets a hint from command-not-found to install the package if he > tries to run python. Package dependencies on the new four binary packages > have > to be disallowed in the Python policy. Note that such a package including the > Provides should only be uploaded once all dependencies on the unversioned > python > packages are gone. So I see that the removal of `/usr/bin/python`-shipped-by-python-defaults has happened as planned. Thanks! I've just got a friend ask me about what to do to get /usr/bin/python to point at python3; Do you have any plan of uploading what-is-python for use in bullseye, at least without the python-is-python2 Provides for python as a first step (to keep the current "breakage")? In any case I think the python packaging policy at https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ch-python.html should get an update to match the current status quo related to /usr/bin/python; My friend looked at it and were confused not to find a /usr/bin/python anymore. Thanks, -- Nicolas Dandrimont
