Re: Bits from the Debian PyCon Hangout - PyPy

2015-04-16 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Thursday, April 16, 2015 06:45:08 PM Stefano Rivera wrote: Hi Scott (2015.04.15_18:30:23_+0200) If we are sharing dist-packages, then pypy can probably use the same binary when the content would be the same. Only in cases where the content is different would you duplicate a separate

Re: Upstream source merge only when building Debian source (was: Bits from the Debian PyCon Hangout)

2015-04-15 Thread Barry Warsaw
On Apr 15, 2015, at 09:05 AM, Ben Finney wrote: I use the “merge when building the source package” workflow, where the upstream source is a tarball outside the working tree, not part of the Debian packaging VCS at all. See ‘git-buildpackage(1)’, the ‘--git-overlay’ option. Is that still a

Re: Upstream source merge only when building Debian source (was: Bits from the Debian PyCon Hangout)

2015-04-15 Thread Barry Warsaw
On Apr 15, 2015, at 09:34 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: Is that still a wholly compatible workflow with what is being proposed? I think so, but I haven't played with --git-overlay. Oops, I misread. To be clear, I think the patch regimes are not compatible with --git-overlay, but I could be wrong.

Re: Upstream source merge only when building Debian source (was: Bits from the Debian PyCon Hangout)

2015-04-15 Thread Stefano Rivera
Hi Paul (2015.04.15_16:53:04_+0200) See ‘git-buildpackage(1)’, the ‘--git-overlay’ option. Is that still a wholly compatible workflow with what is being proposed? I have this workflow as well, and this would even work really well with our current svn repos, but folks in the room at

Re: Bits from the Debian PyCon Hangout - PyPy

2015-04-15 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 04:54:45 PM Stefano Rivera wrote: Hi Scott (2015.04.15_02:17:18_+0200) Consensus seems to be give it a shot and try to see what works. There are no pypy apps, so this isn't an issue yet. What is the it that's to be given a shot? I see two choices there?

Re: Upstream source merge only when building Debian source (was: Bits from the Debian PyCon Hangout)

2015-04-15 Thread Paul Tagliamonte
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 09:05:06AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes: All present felt strongly that we should always use pristine upstream tarballs as released by upstreams, with pristine-tar. I'm glad of the former. I don't use ‘pristine-tar’, though.

Re: Bits from the Debian PyCon Hangout - PyPy

2015-04-15 Thread Stefano Rivera
Hi Scott (2015.04.15_02:17:18_+0200) Consensus seems to be give it a shot and try to see what works. There are no pypy apps, so this isn't an issue yet. What is the it that's to be given a shot? I see two choices there? Give python3 + pypy3 shared dist-packages a shot. Did you discuss the

Re: Bits from the Debian PyCon Hangout - PyPy

2015-04-15 Thread Stefano Rivera
Hi Scott (2015.04.15_17:19:39_+0200) Since these pypy extension packages are new and there are no applications, I think it would make a lot of sense to limit this to PY3. It makes things much simpler technically. We should not recreate the symlink farm we used to have for python. I

Re: Bits from the Debian PyCon Hangout - /usr/bin/python

2015-04-15 Thread Stefano Rivera
Hi Scott (2015.04.15_02:17:18_+0200) Upstream Python's direction for Python paths is in favor of explicitly numbered /usr/bin/python2 and /usr/bin/python3. In support of this, rough consensus in the room is that /usr/bin/python should likely be removed *entirely* from shebangs (though not

Re: Bits from the Debian PyCon Hangout - /usr/bin/python

2015-04-15 Thread Scott Kitterman
On April 15, 2015 11:17:52 AM EDT, Stefano Rivera stefa...@debian.org wrote: Hi Scott (2015.04.15_02:17:18_+0200) Upstream Python's direction for Python paths is in favor of explicitly numbered /usr/bin/python2 and /usr/bin/python3. In support of this, rough consensus in the room is that

Re: Bits from the Debian PyCon Hangout - PyPy

2015-04-15 Thread Scott Kitterman
On April 15, 2015 11:24:30 AM EDT, Stefano Rivera stefa...@debian.org wrote: Hi Scott (2015.04.15_17:19:39_+0200) Since these pypy extension packages are new and there are no applications, I think it would make a lot of sense to limit this to PY3. It makes things much simpler technically.

Re: Bits from the Debian PyCon Hangout - /usr/bin/python

2015-04-15 Thread Barry Warsaw
On Apr 15, 2015, at 12:24 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: Maybe I'll mellow over time, but currently my thinking is that if there's an upload to point /usr/bin/python at a python3, it will be immediately followed by one where I remove myself from being maintainer. It's an idea that can only cause

Re: Bits from the Debian PyCon Hangout - /usr/bin/python

2015-04-15 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 02:16:58 PM Barry Warsaw wrote: On Apr 15, 2015, at 12:24 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: Maybe I'll mellow over time, but currently my thinking is that if there's an upload to point /usr/bin/python at a python3, it will be immediately followed by one where I remove

Re: Bits from the Debian PyCon Hangout - /usr/bin/python

2015-04-15 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 11:00:53 PM Stefano Rivera wrote: Hi Scott (2015.04.15_22:42:26_+0200) P.S. It would be nice if there would be a PEP that says to never ever do this. I know it would make Arch have a sad, but they'll get over it. I think everyone wants to make Arch sad. In

Re: Bits from the Debian PyCon Hangout - /usr/bin/python

2015-04-15 Thread Barry Warsaw
On Apr 15, 2015, at 04:42 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: Then I don't understand why the whole s/python/python2// plan in the shebangs helps anything. As long as both exist, it's a no-op. Partly this is to begin to educate users to stop using /usr/bin/python, which has unclear semantics across the

Re: Bits from the Debian PyCon Hangout - /usr/bin/python

2015-04-15 Thread Thomas Kluyver
It's worth mentioning that in virtualenvs and conda envs, where there can only be one version of Python installed, 'python' refers to that whether it is Python 3 or 2. So it's already not a safe assumption that 'python' always means Python 2, even if you discount Arch. On 15 April 2015 at 21:04,

Re: Bits from the Debian PyCon Hangout - /usr/bin/python

2015-04-15 Thread Scott Kitterman
The odds of system management scripts I wrote a decade ago and haven't touched since living in a virtualenv is approximately zero. The issue with switching where /usr/bin/python points to python3 is to avoid problems on systems. I don't think virtualenv is relevant. In any case, if you're

Re: Bits from the Debian PyCon Hangout - /usr/bin/python

2015-04-15 Thread Stefano Rivera
Hi Scott (2015.04.15_22:42:26_+0200) P.S. It would be nice if there would be a PEP that says to never ever do this. I know it would make Arch have a sad, but they'll get over it. I think everyone wants to make Arch sad. In retaliation for them making us sad. Apparently there were many

Re: Bits from the Debian PyCon Hangout

2015-04-14 Thread Scott Kitterman
On April 14, 2015 6:01:56 PM EDT, Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org wrote: === BITS FROM THE DEBIAN PYCON HANGOUT === Agenda: - Discuss how we might support multiple interpreters with Python 3 packages, for cpython + pypy C extensions. - Set up a plan

Bits from the Debian PyCon Hangout

2015-04-14 Thread Paul Tagliamonte
=== BITS FROM THE DEBIAN PYCON HANGOUT === Agenda: - Discuss how we might support multiple interpreters with Python 3 packages, for cpython + pypy C extensions. - Set up a plan for the svn = git migration - Python 2 deprecation - /usr/bin/python

Re: Bits from the Debian PyCon Hangout

2015-04-14 Thread Ben Finney
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes: === BITS FROM THE DEBIAN PYCON HANGOUT === Thanks for posting this so promptly, Paul! -- \ “Not using Microsoft products is like being a non-smoker 40 or | `\ 50 years ago: You can choose not to smoke, yourself, but it's

Upstream source merge only when building Debian source (was: Bits from the Debian PyCon Hangout)

2015-04-14 Thread Ben Finney
Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org writes: SVN = GIT -- We should just do it! +1 […] All present felt strongly that we should always use pristine upstream tarballs as released by upstreams, with pristine-tar. I'm glad of the former. I don't use ‘pristine-tar’, though. I