On 20 July 2015 at 13:04, Julien Cristau <julien.cris...@logilab.fr> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 07:58:13 -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote: > >> On Jul 20, 2015, at 01:12 PM, Julien Cristau wrote: >> >> >Is that a serious question? Why should debian-python, for no good >> >reason, break things that work just fine? >> >> Because it doesn't really work well when you are supporting both Python 2 and >> Python 3. For example, if you have the 'foo' namespace with submodules 'bar' >> and 'baz', you can't write a foo/__init__.py that supports old-style >> namespaces for Python 2 and PEP 420 style namespaces for Python 3 because in >> the latter *you can't have an __init__.py at all*. >> > That's exactly why Debian shouldn't mess with it. If upstream is > python3-only, they can remove __init__.py and go PEP420. If not, they > can use old-style namespaces on both python versions, and there's no > reason for Debian to break that IMO.
Would it be fair to have a goal to only have PEP420 style namespaces in python3 world? And if there are upstreams that don't do that now, work with them to achieve this and/or cpython/setuptools/distutils upstream. -- Regards, Dimitri. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CANBHLUjb4+KtnEDAKDTg=kbxnc-hjffeu3suekgq9uzmxwp...@mail.gmail.com