I was saying the same thing in my head, but as i thought about it, if the cpython maint team (hi doko) wants it, I don't see why not :)
I phrased it in such a way in my mail that I feel comfortable sending my draft and then working out details without setting ftpteam policy first
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 11:07:13 PM Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 04/15/2015 10:27 PM, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> > Heyya d-p,
> >
> > I'd like to send an email to d-d-a asking that project to consider no
> > longer creating new Debian tools in Python 2.
> >
> > I'd like this to have the endorsement of the team, so, does anyone object
> > to me asking people to not write new tools in Python 2 only (prefer
> > alternative deps or porting), and only use Python 2 in very special
> > curcumstances or for legacy codebases (perhaps a pitch to move to Python
> > 3), along with a note that we plan to deprecate Python 2 when upstream
> > support is gone (2020), which puts us on track for two cycles (Buster)
> >
> >
> > I'll make note of a team which should exist to help with such porting,
> > (I'm up to help with this) that was one of the items that came out of
> > the PyCon chit-chat. I got the sense from the room that this would be
> > OK, but just checking if anyone here has a substantive objection.
> >
> > If not, I'll send that out later on today/tomorow.
>
> sure, please could you also propose not to accept new packages which are
> Python3 compatible upstream, but use Python2 in the packaging? Same thing
> for modules when Python3 is supported upstream, but only the Python2 module
> is packaged.
Do you expect the FTP Team to enforce this? If not them, who? While I agree
with the idea, I don't think it's something that can be enforced more broadly
than DPMT/PAPT. We can (and I thnk it's reasonable to say) that DPMT/PAPT
won't accept such packages, but I don't think we can keep them out of the
archive.
Scott K