Bug#939181: cycle: should it be RM'd ?
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 06:06:59PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 10:56:23AM -0500, Scott Talbert wrote: > > Is there any hope for a Python 3 port of cycle, or should it just be RM'd? > > Ana, could you please have a last word about this? > Thanks Andreas. I haven't given up yet in a Python 3 port, but if cycle must be removed for the sake of removing Python 2, just do it. It's always possible to re-introduce the package later. Cheers, Ana
Bug#939181: cycle: should it be RM'd ?
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 10:56:23AM -0500, Scott Talbert wrote: > Is there any hope for a Python 3 port of cycle, or should it just be RM'd? Ana, could you please have a last word about this? Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Bug#939181: cycle: should it be RM'd ?
Hi all, Is there any hope for a Python 3 port of cycle, or should it just be RM'd? Scott