> On Jul 12, 2019, at 12:49 PM, Michael Catanzaro <mcatanz...@igalia.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 2:18 PM, Jonathan Bedard <jbed...@apple.com> wrote: >> The trouble I foresee us encountering with any scheme which attempts a >> conversion which retains both Python 2.7 and Python 3 compatibility is code >> like this: > > Is python2 support required for a well-motivated transitional purpose? > > I had previously proposed making all our scripts work with both python2 and > python3 only because I thought Apple was going to require python2 > indefinitely. Now that you're interested in this transition, there's probably > no need to continue python2 support. Anyone building WebKit on older versions > of macOS can reasonably be expected to manually install python3, right? And > it's clear that you're prepared to do this for infrastructure/bots already.
We still need to figure out whether (and for how long) we intend to retain Python 2 support. Over the last few months, opinions on this have changed quite a bit, so I’m trying to determine what our path forward is going to be. In my opinion, a few months after Catalina GMs, we no longer need to maintain Python 2 support, assuming that we provide adequate automation for installing Python 3 on pre-Catalina macOS (ie, Mojave, High Sierra) and are explicit about shebangs. > > Then million-dollar question is: what shebangs will we use for our scripts? > Will #!/usr/bin/env python3 work for Apple? If we move straight to Python 3, we would need to use the Python 3 shebang. Catalina has both Python 2.7 (name ‘python’) and Python 3 (named ‘python3’). I think that this is what we would want to do because it allows us to pretty explicitly convert scripts one at a time. > > Michael > > _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev