On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 05:42:24PM +0100, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> anyway, why wouldnt you want to provide a python2 package if the code
> supports it? if you got a py3k package working, it's usually
> straightforward to have a py pkg. Doing that i've found several issues
> with upsteam projects that were fixed, thus increasing the general
> quality of their code and our distribution
my opinion:
it just makes no sense to discuss this now:
+ it's less than 6 months from the freeze
+ I doubt that there will be that many "affected packages" right now,
much less that many "buggy" (by your proposal) indroced in the next
few months; I don't recall seeing any example in any email.
+ I very much hope we'll manage to get buster out without python2, in
that case thinking about shipping py2 modules now when we're going to
drop them next year would be a plain waste of time.
I'm curious: what triggered this email of yours?
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature