Hi, Some possibly unqualified remarks as I have not been part of the discussion from the get go, nor am I very active in the Python area. On 10/14/2013 03:36 AM, Sascha Peilicke wrote:
Hi,
On Saturday 12 October 2013 14:19:57 you wrote:
Hi Sascha !
Is there any possibility we (all python maintainers) discuss our goals both python2 and python3 ?
sure, since Juergen joined recently too, I CC'ed everyone. I dunno how you guys prefer it, we could have an IRC meeting at some point but I guess it's easier to stay with mails just now. Therefore I added opensuse-packaging@ because that's really where we should discuss things.
We receive requests sometimes update and/or new packages which are Python3 compatible.
From my PoV, devel:languages:python (d:l:p) and devel:languages:python3 (d:l:p3) are only loosely connected. Of course I tend to update things in both projects and implement update-alternatives and other features here and there. So I guess asking submitters to also fix the other package is the simplest approach. Otherwise, I guess it's about proper tooling.
Should we allow new packages for devel:languages:python or directly impose python3-only packaging ?
A lot of people currently have much more interest in d:l:p due to important software such as OpenStack. Therefore I wouldn't want to impose anything but rather ask people.
I mean we have a lot of packages to maintain, and to do it for both python2 and 3 is long and tedius.
In the long run, py3k will gradually replace py2k in openSUSE, that means if the critical mass is reached and most upstreams moved on, py2k pkgs will slowly fade from Factory. Meanwhile, some pkg upstreams already stopped caring for py2k, so their pkgs simply stay with the last working version. Currently it's more manual work, I agree.
Do we have some sentiment of what it would take to switch to python 3 as the default. For examples, if Factory would switch to python 3 as default toady, what would be broken? Do we know?
A counter-example is devel:languages:ruby and it's subprojects. It has a very clever project layout to allow building for several Ruby versions in the same project. On the other hand, I would argue I know less than 5 people that have the full picture of the project which effectively reduces contributions on the project level.
Agreed the ruby setup is so clever that most of the stuff I depend on for other packages appears to be always broken, and I have no idea how to help to fix it. From my point of view the ruby setup is an exercise in cleverness to the exclusion of practicality and usefulness. But that's a different discussion. In the defense of those that implemented the Ruby stuff, they have to deal with incompatible versions of the language every blue moon. On the Python side there's documentation about how to deal with the two projects, yet I am not certain that most people care enough to do the extra work, I know I don't. I work for the default, i.e. d:l:p and ignore python3. Yes, feel free to yell at me for that, but not being a core Python contributor in openSUSE and having a lot of other stuff going on does produce time constraints ;) . Anyway, the point being, the sooner we can switch to Python 3 as the default, the sooner we are going to get better and more contributions from everyone for Python 3. My $0.02 Robert -- Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU SUSE-IBM Software Integration Center LINUX Tech Lead Public Cloud Architect rjschwei@suse.com rschweik@ca.ibm.com 781-464-8147 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org