> 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 

> 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

Reply via email to