> From: tm...@redhat.com > > On Fri, 2013-07-19 at 11:24 -0400, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote: > > > From: nicolas.mail...@laposte.net > > > > > > > > > Le Ven 19 juillet 2013 17:04, Tomas Mraz a écrit : > > > > On Fri, 2013-07-19 at 10:17 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > > > > >> So while I encourage a Fedora effort to get onto Python3 by default, > > > >> well before 2015, I don't think we should assume that Python2 support > > > >> is definitely going to stop in 2015. > > > > > > > > +1 Breaking completely needlessly backwards compatibility this way is > > > > really not a good idea. > > > > > > OTOH, it's better to give a heads-up this way (with the option to change > > > shebangs as short-term workaround) than drop users cold at python2 > > removal > > > time (which *will* eventually come). Some people really need some > > breakage > > > to notice they're missing a migration. > > > > > > Excellent point! If I were caught unaware, I'd much rather have to fix up > > a bunch shebang lines and learn that I need to get going on my migration > > pronto than the alternative of finding one day that python2 is just gone > > where one is left with either a hurried port or downloading python2 from > > external sources. > > The heads-up can be done before the python2 dropping by > removing /usr/bin/python from python2 package.
Ah, true indeed. However, I still like the idea of being explicit. If you want py2, say so in the shebang line. Likewise with py3. How can we get the very blunt "head's up" and be explicit too? I have no idea when py2 will truly go away, but I'm convinced it will eventually and I'd like to create my works in the best possible fashion. Thus far I've relied on the implicit py->py2 and explicit py3 invocations as that's the way I've seen Fedora set examples, but I think this should really be more detailed in the packaging guidelines. -- John Florian
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
