On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Stéphane Gaudreault <steph...@archlinux.org> wrote: > Le 2012-09-13 08:04, Allan McRae a écrit : > >> On 13/09/12 21:53, Stéphane Gaudreault wrote: >>> >>> Le 2012-09-13 00:18, Allan McRae a écrit : >>>> >>>> On 13/09/12 10:00, Stéphane Gaudreault wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Python 3.3.0 should be released around September 22. I would like to >>>>> take this opportunity to implement some of the recommendations of the >>>>> PEP 394 [1]. This PEP was mostly done in reaction to what Arch did to >>>>> the /usr/bin/python symlink (in summary, most python devs are against >>>>> the move to python3 as a default at this time). >>>>> >>>>> In short: >>>>> python2 should refer to some version of Python 2.x >>>>> python3 should refer to some version of Python 3.x >>>>> python should refer to the same target as python2 but may refer to >>>>> python3 on some bleeding edge distributions >>>>> >>>>> This means that we should never have a reference to '#!/usr/bin/python' >>>>> in any of our packages. All those reference should be changed to >>>>> /usr/bin/python2 to refer to Python 2.x and /usr/bin/python3 for Python >>>>> 3.x. The idea here is that a system without any python symlink should >>>>> work without problem. Maybe namcap could be used to detect wrong >>>>> shebang ? >>>> >>>> This is necessary as far as I am concerned. >>>> >>>>> Another possibility, suggested by Allan, would be to go even further >>>>> and >>>>> use /usr/bin/python3.3 and /usr/bin/python2.7 for all shebangs. Then >>>>> /usr/bin/python can point to any version and /usr/bin/python2 and >>>>> /usr/bin/python3 can point to any pyhton2.x and python3.x respectively. >>>>> These numbers in the shebangs will be changed when python bump is >>>>> version number as we need to rebuild almost everything anyway. >>>> >>>> I'm leaning towards that being to much effort. Just using >>>> python2/python3 should be enough. >>>> >>>> >>>> One thing not mentioned in this email is that we really need to sort out >>>> the package naming in the repos. Two options: >>>> >>>> python-foo >>>> python2-foo >>>> >>>> or >>>> >>>> python3-foo >>>> python2-foo >>>> >>>> >>>> I personally would go for the first option, under the assumption that >>>> python4 will not exist for many years. >>>> >>>> Allan >>>> >>> I did not mentioned the packages name because I am fine with the statu >>> quo on this. >> >> What is the status quo? Something called python-foo can be either >> python2 or python3 at the moment. >> >> > I mean that I don't really care if we use > > > python-foo > python2-foo > > or > > python3-foo > python2-foo > > even if I have a preference for the latter (also used in many other distro).
We also have python libraries not prefixed by python- (e.g: pyalpm, pycups, pygtk, etc), I think we should also update with pkgbase=pygtk pkgname=(python-gtk python2-gtk) > However, it would be nice if we could have consistent maning across all the > packages at the end of the python 3.3.0 rebuild. I prefer the first, we have the same case with lua and we should let program name be the last upstream "stable" version. Python is python 3, python 2 is dying (hardly) and I hope move from python 3 to python 4 will be smooth. Cheers, -- Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer www.seblu.net