Re: Python 3.11, bytecode and new internals

[Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>]

On 11/22/22 10:59, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 09:22:05AM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > > this, 100 times
> >
> > I very much don't agree. I think it's going pretty well, and the number of
> > breakage isn't high. We just need a little bit of effort to make it in good
> > enough shape.
> > [...]
> > Now, out of *many* of my packages, only a very few broke. Complicated
> > packages like Eventlet for example, just worked. Others had upstream patches
> > I applied. And I am in the opinion that we should go ahead and make 3.11 the
> > default.
>
> If there are people with the expertise to help upstream update
> bytecode and parso (and probably several other low-level packages) for
> 3.11 so that the software that depends on them works with 3.11, then
> fine.  (And it is a non-trivial update, AFAICT.)  But until then, I'd
> be very reluctant to make 3.11 the default.

Have you tried this PR?
https://github.com/MatthieuDartiailh/bytecode/pull/107

> I haven't decided what to do with packages which now FTBFS under 3.11
> because of this.  Should we just let them fall out of testing (that
> certainly includes spyder, and quite possibly ipython as well)?
> Or should we mark them as X-Python3-Version: << 3.11 so they can stay in
> testing as long as Python 3.10 is the default?

I don't think this is the way.

> If we make 3.11 the
> default, these packages will likely not be in bookworm, which might
> upset our users even more.

We're not there yet. We have until January to fix, and we haven't 
decided yet if 3.11 will be the default.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)