Re: on keep providing python 2 packages
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 08:19:46 +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> I got a feeling we are somehow discouraging the introduction of
> python2 package in unstable (it was also discussed at the BoF).
>
> while i can see why we dont want to introduce new python2-only
> package, i feel that just providing a py3k pkg while the module is
> also py2 compatible is a disservice to our users: wether we like it or
> not, python 2 is the de facto interpreter for python and not having a
> module available will not just make everyone switch to py3k (i already
> faced it a couple of times already, where i needed a module to extend
> an already existing project, and it was not there)
>
> does anyone else agrees with this view? should we clarify that, when
> available, python2 modules must be provided (along with their py3k)?
>
> apps/scripts are fine being py3k by default, but the underlying
> modules has to be provided by for py2 if compatible.
>
Very much agree.
Cheers,
Julien
Reply to: