Re: Updated PEP 394 (python and python2 commands)

[Scott Kitterman]

On May 20, 2018 9:49:27 PM UTC, Thomas Goirand  wrote:
>On 05/17/2018 08:53 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> PEP 394 [1] saw an update in April 2018 [2], the diffs at [3].
>> 
>> The most important change from my point of view is
>> 
>> -* It is suggested that even distribution-specific packages follow
>the
>> -  ``python2``/``python3`` convention, even in code that is not
>intended to
>> +* It is strongly encouraged that distribution-specific packages use
>``python2``
>> +  or ``python3`` rather than ``python``, even in code that is not
>intended to
>>operate on other distributions.
>> 
>> I don't think there is enough time to replace all python shebangs to
>python2 in
>> time for the buster release, however there is no harm in starting
>this process
>> now.  But I'd like to get this done for buster+1, in the case we
>still need to
>> ship a Python2/2.7, so that buster+1 doesn't ship with a python
>command, but
>> maybe with a python2 command.
>
>I very much support this proposal, and don't understand why Scott and
>Piotr aren't (plus seemingly inventing things you haven't proposed).

You probably didn't notice that this is already happening (mentioned in the 
thread).  Not only did we not object to this, Piotr already implemented it even 
before Matthias suggested it in this thread.  So bottom line is this is 
nonsense.

There are other parts of the proposal that we are less sanguine about that you 
conveniently removed.  It is probably a better idea to get your facts straight 
before you start throwing around accusations.

Scott K

Re: Updated PEP 394 (python and python2 commands)

[Thomas Goirand]

On 05/17/2018 08:53 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> PEP 394 [1] saw an update in April 2018 [2], the diffs at [3].
> 
> The most important change from my point of view is
> 
> -* It is suggested that even distribution-specific packages follow the
> -  ``python2``/``python3`` convention, even in code that is not intended to
> +* It is strongly encouraged that distribution-specific packages use 
> ``python2``
> +  or ``python3`` rather than ``python``, even in code that is not intended to
>operate on other distributions.
> 
> I don't think there is enough time to replace all python shebangs to python2 
> in
> time for the buster release, however there is no harm in starting this process
> now.  But I'd like to get this done for buster+1, in the case we still need to
> ship a Python2/2.7, so that buster+1 doesn't ship with a python command, but
> maybe with a python2 command.

I very much support this proposal, and don't understand why Scott and
Piotr aren't (plus seemingly inventing things you haven't proposed).

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Request to join DPMT to maintain ujson

[Lumin]

Hello python team,

I'd like to adopt the ujson package[1], which was tagged RFA by the
original maintainer. Can someone grant me[2] access to that repo?

I'm following this guide:

  https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam/HowToJoin

But following that page the reader is required to accept a 404 page:

  https://python-modules.alioth.debian.org/python-modules-policy.html 

[1] https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/modules/ujson
[2] https://salsa.debian.org/lumin-guest  (I'm currently a DM)

On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 09:51:21AM -0400, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> > I'd like to adopt ujson since I use it everyday.
> > May I ask whether the reason why you RFA this package is due
> > to a even faster new json encoder/decoder?
> 
> simple lack of interest
> 
> > BTW, could you grant me[1] the master access to the repo[2]?
> > (So that I can directly push to master branch)
> 
> please follow the procedure at
> https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam/HowToJoin
> 
> Regards,
> -- 
> Sandro "morph" Tosi
> My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
> Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
> G+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+SandroTosi


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature