On 15/12/10 13:45, Joao Cordeiro wrote: > It seems to me that having two packages (python-* and python2-*) would make > sense only if that package worked _both_ with python2 and python3. In this > particular case, where simpleparse works with python2 only, I don't > understand why we can't have it with the original name depending on python2.
We could do that, yes. However, since he already uploaded a python2- package, there was no reason not to delete the python- package. > Please understand that I'm just a normal user and my opinion is worth almost > nothing. However, because I adopted a few fine packages that only needed > some python2 work, I really wanted to bring this up and understand what is > the better way to solve it. > > Should all foo packages that stopped working because of python3 be deleted > and replaced with python2-foo? It doesn't make any sense to me. Your sense of the preferred course of action is correct; packages should be renamed lazily. This means that, packages that are not compatible with Python 3 should keep their existing naming. If and when a Python 3 compatible version comes out, a python2- package will be created that will install the module for Python 2, and the python- package will be updated and install the module for Python 3.