Hi Michael, On Sun, Feb 05, 2023 at 02:29:10PM +0100, Michael Kesper wrote: > Hi Julian, > > Am 05.02.23 um 11:38 schrieb Julian Gilbey: > > Why is the current intention not to ship the python3.10 package in > > bookworm? > > Because it would amount to about double the work for all those involved.
I doubt it would be double the work, but as Scott points out in his email, it would require paying attention to security issues in the Python interpreter for both the 3.10 and 3.11 interpreters. I had not considered that. > Besides, Python 3.11 has some points for it: > - Real performance gains for real workloads > - It will be supported one year longer (so EOL is expected to be around the > time bookworm will be out of stable, too). I'm not proposing that we revert to Python 3.10 as default for bookworm, only that we have the python3.10 package itself in bookworm. > > I was trying to run some experiments in a virtual environment a few > > days ago, and it turns out that several of the Python packages I > > needed do not yet run on Python 3.11. I was saved by being able to > > run in a Python 3.10 venv and download all the required packages from > > PyPI. If bookworm shipped without python3.10, I would not have been > > able to do my work. Removing python3.10 from bookworm will seriously > > affect many of our users in a similar situation to me. > ... > > P.S. We should also fix #1036268 if we do keep python3.10 in bookworm; > > I'm happy to do an NMU if needed. > > Maybe you could sponsor a "backport" of Python3.11? I don't understand this suggestion. #1036268 says that running "python3.10 -m venv envname" if the python3.10-venv package is not installed should output a meaningful error message rather than crash with an "undefined variable" error. Best wishes, Julian
