Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

What would _really_ help is getting the groups that maintain each dead parrot to collaborate on a "Python Legacy release" that adds back anything with a maintainer to the stdlib of the current Python version. Even that will demand large resources, and if it's to be organised in a way that doesn't

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

It might also serve to identify those with an interest in maintaining the non-core packages, which might even be given some special status on PyPI. On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 9:01 AM Alex Walters wrote: > I've watched the entire thread and its taken me a few days to put a finger > on what bothers

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On May 20, 2019, at 13:15, Christian Heimes wrote: > > here is the first version of my PEP 594 to deprecate and eventually remove > modules from the standard library. The PEP started last year with talk during > the Python Language Summit 2018, https://lwn.net/Articles/755229/. > > The PEP

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

+1 On 5/23/19 1:00 AM, Alex Walters wrote: I've watched the entire thread and its taken me a few days to put a finger on what bothers me about it. In my opinion, this shouldn't be a pep describing the list of modules that need to go as "dead batteries", but should be a process pep describing

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

I've watched the entire thread and its taken me a few days to put a finger on what bothers me about it. In my opinion, this shouldn't be a pep describing the list of modules that need to go as "dead batteries", but should be a process pep describing how dead batteries should be removed, and the

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 23/05/2019 02.58, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 01:31:18PM +0200, Christian Heimes wrote: >> On 22/05/2019 12.19, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >>> I don't think this PEP should become a document about "Why you should >>> use PAM". I appreciate that from your perspective as a Red

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 5/22/2019 4:09 AM, Christian Heimes wrote: On 22/05/2019 01.11, Glenn Linderman wrote: On 5/21/2019 2:00 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:43 AM Glenn Linderman wrote: After maintaining my own version of http.server to fix or workaround some of its deficiencies for

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 01:31:18PM +0200, Christian Heimes wrote: > On 22/05/2019 12.19, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > I don't think this PEP should become a document about "Why you should > > use PAM". I appreciate that from your perspective as a Red Hat security > > guy, you want everyone to use

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On Wed, May 22, 2019, 04:32 Christian Heimes wrote: > On 22/05/2019 12.19, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > I don't think this PEP should become a document about "Why you should > > use PAM". I appreciate that from your perspective as a Red Hat security > > guy, you want everyone to use best practices

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

Between this discussion and Steve Dower's recently referenced blog post at https://devblogs.microsoft.com/python/python-in-the-windows-10-may-2019-update/from which I quote below: It’s been widely known for many years that Windows is the only mainstream operating system that does not include

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 22/05/2019 06.59, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Christian Heimes writes: > > > It's all open source. It's up to the Python community to adopt > > packages and provide them on PyPI. > > > > Python core will not maintain and distribute the packages. I'll > > merely provide a repository with

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 22/05/2019 12.19, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > I don't think this PEP should become a document about "Why you should > use PAM". I appreciate that from your perspective as a Red Hat security > guy, you want everyone to use best practices as you see them, but it > isn't Python's position to

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 22/05/2019 01.11, Glenn Linderman wrote: > On 5/21/2019 2:00 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:43 AM Glenn Linderman >> wrote: >>> After maintaining my own version of http.server to fix or workaround some >>> of its deficiencies for some years, I discovered bottle.py.

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 01:59:56PM -0400, Terry Reedy wrote: > On 5/21/2019 9:01 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > ... > >Many Python users don't have the privilege of being able to install > >arbitrary, unvetted packages from PyPI. They get to use only packages > >from approved vendors, including the

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 01:59:59PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > This looks to me like an opening to a special class of supply chain > attacks. [...] > One thing we *could* do that would require moderate effort would be to > put them up on PyPI ourselves, and require that would-be

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 10:07:31AM +0200, Christian Heimes wrote: > On 22/05/2019 06.20, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: > > It is possible to have a modern Linux desktop system with PAM not > > installed at all, and therefore not used. [...] Christian wrote: > Thanks for bringing

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

2019年5月22日(水) 18:57 Steven D'Aprano : > > > All deprecated modules will also undergo a feature freeze. No additional > > features should be added. Bug should still be fixed. > > I disagree with this. If people are requesting or contributing features > to a module, that's a good sign that it *is*

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 01:13:30PM -0400, Edwin Zimmerman wrote: [...] [-- Attachment #2: winmail.dat --] [-- Type: application/ms-tnef, Encoding: base64, Size: 8.4K --] Wow! I haven't see one of those for *years* -- I haven't noticed one for about 15 years, and I thought it was an obsolete

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

Let me be clear: I do not oppose the removal of modules where necessary, but I do not like this PEP as it stands. But full credit to Christian for graciously accepting feedback; I also acknowledge that if this PEP is accepted, we still have at least two releases to change our minds about

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

Neil Schemenauer writes: > Here is an alternative, straw man, proposal. Split the CPython repo > into two parts: > > - core Python: minimal possible stdlib > - everything else I take issue with the characterization of "straw man," it's a practical idea that turns out to be not so

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 22/05/2019 08.30, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote: > > > On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 04:30, Antoine Pitrou > wrote: > > > NNTP is still quite used (often through GMane, but probably not only) so > I'd question the removal of nntplib. > > > I concur nntplib should

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 22/05/2019 06.20, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: > 2019-05-21 00:06 UTC+02:00, Christian Heimes wrote: >> On 20/05/2019 23.27, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >>> Removing the crypt module would remove support for system-standard >>> password files. I don't understand the rationale. >> >>

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 2019-05-21, Brett Cannon wrote: > On Tue., May 21, 2019, 13:07 Neil Schemenauer, > wrote: > > Here is an alternative, straw man, proposal. Split the CPython repo > > into two parts: > > > > - core Python: minimal possible stdlib > > - everything else > > How to this lighten the

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 04:30, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > NNTP is still quite used (often through GMane, but probably not only) so > I'd question the removal of nntplib. I concur nntplib should be left alone. There are possibly even less used network protocols such as telnet (tenetlib) which are

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

This vector exists today for all new stdlib modules: once added, any existing dependency could include that name to cater it to be imported on prior python versions. Rob On Wed, 22 May 2019, 17:03 Stephen J. Turnbull, < turnbull.stephen...@u.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote: > Christian Heimes writes: > >

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On Tue, May 21, 2019, at 14:17, Christian Heimes wrote: > thanks for bringing this topic up. Initially I considered http.server, > too. But as Guido put it, it's both used and useful for local testing > and quick hacks. I'm already facing opposition for modules that are > less controversial and

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

Christian Heimes writes: > It's all open source. It's up to the Python community to adopt > packages and provide them on PyPI. > > Python core will not maintain and distribute the packages. I'll > merely provide a repository with packages to help kick-starting the > process. This looks to

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

2019-05-21 00:06 UTC+02:00, Christian Heimes wrote: > On 20/05/2019 23.27, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> Removing the crypt module would remove support for system-standard >> password files. I don't understand the rationale. > > Applications *must* not access system-standard password files directly.

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On Tue., May 21, 2019, 13:07 Neil Schemenauer, wrote: > On 2019-05-21, Terry Reedy wrote: > > The problem with this argument, taken by itself, it that it would argue > for > > adding to the stdlib 100s or 1000s of modules or packages that would be > > useful to many more people than the modules

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 5/21/2019 2:00 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:43 AM Glenn Linderman wrote: After maintaining my own version of http.server to fix or workaround some of its deficiencies for some years, I discovered bottle.py. It has far more capability, is far better documented, and

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

Le mar. 21 mai 2019 à 23:05, Nathaniel Smith a écrit : > If the tests don't work and the module is unmaintained, then maybe we > should disable the tests and put a prominent notice in the docs saying > that it's unmaintained and any use is at your own risk. It's not a > pleasant thing to do, but

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 4:25 AM Victor Stinner wrote: > > Le mar. 21 mai 2019 à 13:18, André Malo a écrit : > > There's software in production using both. (It doesn't mean it's on pypi or > > even free software). > > > > What would be the maintenance burden of those modules anyway? (at least for

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:43 AM Glenn Linderman wrote: > After maintaining my own version of http.server to fix or workaround some of > its deficiencies for some years, I discovered bottle.py. It has far more > capability, is far better documented, and is just as quick to deploy. While I >

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 5/21/2019 11:15 AM, Christian Heimes wrote: On 21/05/2019 18.29, Glenn Linderman wrote: On 5/20/2019 2:20 PM, Christian Heimes wrote: On 20/05/2019 23.12, Andrew Svetlov wrote: socketserver.py is also questionable I briefly though about the module, but didn't consider it for removal. The

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 2019-05-21, Terry Reedy wrote: > The problem with this argument, taken by itself, it that it would argue for > adding to the stdlib 100s or 1000s of modules or packages that would be > useful to many more people than the modules proposed to be dropped. I don't think it does. We are not

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 21/05/2019 20.35, Guido van Rossum wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 11:17 AM Christian Heimes > wrote: > > I'm already facing opposition for modules that are less controversial and > useful than http.server, too. > > > There's another argument here. This is

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 11:17 AM Christian Heimes wrote: > I'm already facing opposition for modules that are less controversial and > useful than http.server, too. There's another argument here. This is an "omnibus" PEP, meaning it proposes many unrelated changes. In order to get a consensus

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 21/05/2019 16.46, Guido van Rossum wrote: > +1. Let's keep colorsys then. I let colorsys off the hock, https://github.com/python/peps/pull/1070 Thanks for your feedback, Walter and Petr! Christian ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On Tue, 21 May 2019 13:59:56 -0400 Terry Reedy wrote: > On 5/21/2019 9:01 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > ... > > Many Python users don't have the privilege of being able to install > > arbitrary, unvetted packages from PyPI. They get to use only packages > > from approved vendors, including the

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 21/05/2019 18.29, Glenn Linderman wrote: > On 5/20/2019 2:20 PM, Christian Heimes wrote: >> On 20/05/2019 23.12, Andrew Svetlov wrote: >>> socketserver.py is also questionable >> I briefly though about the module, but didn't consider it for removal. The >> http.server, xmlrpc.server, and

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On Tue., May 21, 2019, 04:25 Victor Stinner, wrote: > Le mar. 21 mai 2019 à 13:18, André Malo a écrit : > > There's software in production using both. (It doesn't mean it's on pypi > or > > even free software). > > > > What would be the maintenance burden of those modules anyway? (at least >

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 5/21/2019 9:01 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: ... Many Python users don't have the privilege of being able to install arbitrary, unvetted packages from PyPI. They get to use only packages from approved vendors, including the stdlib, what they write themselves, and nothing else. Please don't

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

``http.server`` is used in ``pydoc``: https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/ccb7ca728e09b307f9e9fd36ec40353137e68a3b/Lib/pydoc.py#L2236 On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 10:12:50AM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: > I still like http.server for quick temporary hacks where I want to be able > to point a

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 5/21/2019 10:12 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: I still like http.server for quick temporary hacks where I want to be able to point a browser at some code I wrote 5 minutes ago and that I plan to discard in an hour. Usually it's running at localhost:8000. Remembering how to use Django, flask or

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 12:30 PM Glenn Linderman wrote On 5/20/2019 2:20 PM, Christian Heimes wrote: On 20/05/2019 23.12, Andrew Svetlov wrote: socketserver.py is also questionable I briefly though about the module, but didn't consider it for removal. The http.server, xmlrpc.server, and logging

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

I still like http.server for quick temporary hacks where I want to be able to point a browser at some code I wrote 5 minutes ago and that I plan to discard in an hour. Usually it's running at localhost:8000. Remembering how to use Django, flask or Tornado seems overkill for that purpose. On Tue,

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 5/20/2019 2:20 PM, Christian Heimes wrote: On 20/05/2019 23.12, Andrew Svetlov wrote: socketserver.py is also questionable I briefly though about the module, but didn't consider it for removal. The http.server, xmlrpc.server, and logging configuration server are implemented on top of the

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

Good point! On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 2:01 PM Paul Moore wrote: > On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 13:50, Steve Holden wrote: > > > > That seems entirely reasonable. I wonder if the larger community could > somehow form an organization (the Dead Parrot SIG?) that would at least > curate and monitor

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

+1. Let's keep colorsys then. On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 7:41 AM Petr Viktorin wrote: > On 5/21/19 12:06 PM, Christian Heimes wrote: > > On 21/05/2019 11.49, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 2:40 AM Walter Dörwald > wrote: > >>> > >>> On 20 May 2019, at 22:15, Christian Heimes

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

Quick note on the pip discussion: if the likely remaining users of a module slated for deprecation are professionals maintaining some legacy code, pip is a fine solution. OTOH if the likely users are beginners, maybe pip is not great. In general I think it's fine to err on the side of caution --

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

> If this were my PEP, I'd call it "Removing unloved batteries from the > standard library". Or maybe, "Removing obsolete and (potentially) dangerous batteries from the standard library." I can certainly understand why either class of module would be removed. When bsddb185 was tossed out, I put

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 5/21/19 12:06 PM, Christian Heimes wrote: On 21/05/2019 11.49, Nathaniel Smith wrote: On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 2:40 AM Walter Dörwald wrote: On 20 May 2019, at 22:15, Christian Heimes wrote: Hi, here is the first version of my PEP 594 to deprecate and eventually remove modules from the

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 21/05/2019 15.54, Victor Stinner wrote: > IMHO we should simply acknowledge this fact by mentioning it in the > PEP. We are aware that "pip install" is not always a valid option, but > we decided anyway to deprecate/remove modules because <...>. I like the idea. Could you create an issue or

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

IMHO we should simply acknowledge this fact by mentioning it in the PEP. We are aware that "pip install" is not always a valid option, but we decided anyway to deprecate/remove modules because <...>. Victor Le mar. 21 mai 2019 à 15:29, Paul Moore a écrit : > > On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 14:03,

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 14:03, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > I know that saying anything against pip and virtual environments is > heresy, but honestly, "just install it from PyPI" is not friendly to > beginners or those who just want something that works without a load of > extra complexity.

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 21/05/2019 15.01, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Christian, I'm glad that you are privileged enough to find it simple and > straight forward to download and install, but for many Python users, it > is not so simple or straight forward. > > Many Python users don't have the privilege of being able

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 13:50, Steve Holden wrote: > > That seems entirely reasonable. I wonder if the larger community could > somehow form an organization (the Dead Parrot SIG?) that would at least > curate and monitor efforts to ensure their continued utility? I have no idea whether there is

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

The PEP title is prejudicial and inaccurate. These aren't "dead batteries", these are *working batteries* that you want to remove. If you want a fair and open debate on this, please change the title to something less prejudicial. If this were my PEP, I'd call it "Removing unloved batteries

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 5/21/19 8:37 AM, Christian Heimes wrote: On 21/05/2019 14.06, Anders Munch wrote: Fra: Python-Dev [mailto:python-dev-bounces+ajm=flonidan...@python.org] På vegne af Christian Heimes * The removed modules will be available through PyPI. Will they? That's not the impression I got from the

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

That seems entirely reasonable. I wonder if the larger community could somehow form an organization (the Dead Parrot SIG?) that would at least curate and monitor efforts to ensure their continued utility? On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 1:40 PM Christian Heimes wrote: > On 21/05/2019 14.06, Anders

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 21/05/2019 14.06, Anders Munch wrote: > Fra: Python-Dev [mailto:python-dev-bounces+ajm=flonidan...@python.org] På > vegne af Christian Heimes >> * The removed modules will be available through PyPI. > > Will they? That's not the impression I got from the PEP. It's all open source. It's up

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On Dienstag, 21. Mai 2019 13:46:34 CEST Christian Heimes wrote: > On 21/05/2019 13.08, André Malo wrote: > > On Montag, 20. Mai 2019 23:27:49 CEST Antoine Pitrou wrote: > >> NNTP is still quite used (often through GMane, but probably not only) > >> so > >> I'd question the removal of nntplib. > >>

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 21/05/2019 13.50, Victor Stinner wrote: > Hi Christian, > > I dislike the PEP 594 title: "Removing dead batteries from the > standard library". A module is never "dead", there are always users, > even if there are less than 5 of them. I'm open for suggestions for a better title. > Extract of

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On Dienstag, 21. Mai 2019 13:50:30 CEST Victor Stinner wrote: > Well, that makes sense. But so, what is the metric to decide if a > module is "widely used" or not? Yes. Exactly the question that pops up right now. I think, that's the main issue when including batteries in general (that's not

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

Fra: Python-Dev [mailto:python-dev-bounces+ajm=flonidan...@python.org] På vegne af Christian Heimes > * The removed modules will be available through PyPI. Will they? That's not the impression I got from the PEP. regards, Anders ___ Python-Dev

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

Hi Christian, I dislike the PEP 594 title: "Removing dead batteries from the standard library". A module is never "dead", there are always users, even if there are less than 5 of them. Extract of the Rationale: "The modules are mostly historic data formats and APIs that have been superseded a

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

Am 21.05.19 um 13:39 schrieb André Malo: So what I hear is, this battery is definitely not dead, which is what the PEP is all about. it's just half charged (or discharged, depending on your POV), so to speak. Substitute: "none" should read pypi then? Every single module on this list will

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 21/05/2019 13.08, André Malo wrote: > On Montag, 20. Mai 2019 23:27:49 CEST Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> NNTP is still quite used (often through GMane, but probably not only) so >> I'd question the removal of nntplib. >> >> cgitb used to be used by some Web frameworks in order to format >>

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On Dienstag, 21. Mai 2019 13:24:34 CEST Victor Stinner wrote: > Le mar. 21 mai 2019 à 13:18, André Malo a écrit : > > There's software in production using both. (It doesn't mean it's on pypi > > or even free software). > > > > What would be the maintenance burden of those modules anyway? (at

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

Le mar. 21 mai 2019 à 13:18, André Malo a écrit : > There's software in production using both. (It doesn't mean it's on pypi or > even free software). > > What would be the maintenance burden of those modules anyway? (at least for > nntp, I guess it's not gonna change). The maintenance burden is

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On Montag, 20. Mai 2019 23:27:49 CEST Antoine Pitrou wrote: > NNTP is still quite used (often through GMane, but probably not only) so > I'd question the removal of nntplib. > > cgitb used to be used by some Web frameworks in order to format > exceptions. Perhaps one should check if that's still

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 21/05/2019 12.19, Giampaolo Rodola' wrote: > I find this one useful and would be a bit sad to see it go. FWIW I use it in > pyftpdlib and I suppose there are other apps out there relying on UNIX > password db for authentication. The fact that it’s a C module is also an > incentive to leave

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 03:17, Christian Heimes wrote: spwd > > > The `spwd `_ module provides > direct access to Unix shadow password database using non-standard APIs. > In general it's a bad idea to use the spwd. The spwd circumvents system >

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 21/05/2019 11.49, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 2:40 AM Walter Dörwald wrote: >> >> On 20 May 2019, at 22:15, Christian Heimes wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> here is the first version of my PEP 594 to deprecate and eventually >>> remove modules from the standard library. The PEP

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

It's covered in "Python in a Nutshell," Alex Martelli having been a promoter of its ability simplify many utility programs for a long time. Not that that's any guide as to what should be in 3.10, by which time we'll be four minor releases out of date anyway. On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 9:16 AM

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On Tue, 21 May 2019 00:55:20 +0200 Christian Heimes wrote: > On 21/05/2019 00.13, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > On Tue, 21 May 2019 00:06:35 +0200 > > Christian Heimes wrote: > >> On 20/05/2019 23.27, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > >>> NNTP is still quite used (often through GMane, but probably not

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 20 May 2019, at 22:15, Christian Heimes wrote: Hi, here is the first version of my PEP 594 to deprecate and eventually remove modules from the standard library. The PEP started last year with talk during the Python Language Summit 2018, https://lwn.net/Articles/755229/. [...] colorsys

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 21/05/2019 02.16, Inada Naoki wrote: > I use fileinput for several times per year. > > fileinput is handy tool to write single script file to analyze log files. > > * In such tools, I don't need real argument parser. > * Some log files are compressed and some are not. > It seems argparse

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

Yeah, I was surprised to see fileinput on the list. It's indeed a handy little tool. On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 5:19 PM Inada Naoki wrote: > I use fileinput for several times per year. > > fileinput is handy tool to write single script file to analyze log files. > > * In such tools, I don't need

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

I use fileinput for several times per year. fileinput is handy tool to write single script file to analyze log files. * In such tools, I don't need real argument parser. * Some log files are compressed and some are not. It seems argparse doesn't support transparent decompression. * I don't

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 21/05/2019 01.06, Terry Reedy wrote: > On 5/20/2019 6:06 PM, Christian Heimes wrote: > >>> Removing the crypt module would remove support for system-standard >>> password files.  I don't understand the rationale. >> >> Applications *must* not access system-standard password files directly. On

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 5/20/2019 6:06 PM, Christian Heimes wrote: Removing the crypt module would remove support for system-standard password files. I don't understand the rationale. Applications *must* not access system-standard password files directly. On any sanely and securely configured systems,

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 21/05/2019 00.13, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Tue, 21 May 2019 00:06:35 +0200 > Christian Heimes wrote: >> On 20/05/2019 23.27, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >>> NNTP is still quite used (often through GMane, but probably not only) so >>> I'd question the removal of nntplib. >> >> Is NNTP support

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On Tue, 21 May 2019 00:41:19 +0200 Simon Cross wrote: > Woot. +100 on this PEP. > > > If the stdlib didn't have NNTP support, obviously nobody would suggest > > adding it nowadays. > > Perhaps this is a good reason to keep nntplib in the deprecation list? No, because the same applies to

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

Woot. +100 on this PEP. > If the stdlib didn't have NNTP support, obviously nobody would suggest > adding it nowadays. Perhaps this is a good reason to keep nntplib in the deprecation list? Another question is "are there any places using nntplib where `pip install nntplib`" is not an reasonable

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On Tue, 21 May 2019 00:06:35 +0200 Christian Heimes wrote: > On 20/05/2019 23.27, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > NNTP is still quite used (often through GMane, but probably not only) so > > I'd question the removal of nntplib. > > Is NNTP support important enough to keep the module in the standard

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

What replacements are available for NNTP? All I could find was pynntp, which had a single release 6 years ago. https://github.com/greenbender/pynntp //Jeff On 5/20/19 2:27 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: NNTP is still quite used (often through GMane, but probably not only) so I'd question the

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 20/05/2019 23.27, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > NNTP is still quite used (often through GMane, but probably not only) so > I'd question the removal of nntplib. Is NNTP support important enough to keep the module in the standard library? > cgitb used to be used by some Web frameworks in order to

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

NNTP is still quite used (often through GMane, but probably not only) so I'd question the removal of nntplib. cgitb used to be used by some Web frameworks in order to format exceptions. Perhaps one should check if that's still the case. If the wave module depends on the audioop module, and if

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

On 20/05/2019 23.12, Andrew Svetlov wrote: > socketserver.py is also questionable I briefly though about the module, but didn't consider it for removal. The http.server, xmlrpc.server, and logging configuration server are implemented on top of the socketserver. I don't want to remove the

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 594: Removing dead batteries from the standard library

socketserver.py is also questionable On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 11:15 PM Christian Heimes wrote: > > Hi, > > here is the first version of my PEP 594 to deprecate and eventually remove > modules from the standard library. The PEP started last year with talk during > the Python Language Summit