- Original Message -
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda < bkab...@redhat.com
> > wrote:
> > - Original Message -
>
> > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Nick Coghlan <
> > > ncogh...@redhat.com
> > > >
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > However, I think it's enough to pl
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Nick Coghlan
> > wrote:
> > > However, I think it's enough to place a clear upper limit on the
> > > number
> > > of runtimes to be supported (where 'x' is the relevant min
Thomas Spura wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
However, I think it's enough to place a clear upper limit on the number
of runtimes to be supported (where 'x' is the relevant minor version
packaged in the Fedora repos): CPython 2.x, PyPy 1.x, Python 3.x (with
shared sit
- Original Message -
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Nick Coghlan
> wrote:
> > However, I think it's enough to place a clear upper limit on the
> > number
> > of runtimes to be supported (where 'x' is the relevant minor
> > version
> > packaged in the Fedora repos): CPython 2.x, PyPy 1.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> However, I think it's enough to place a clear upper limit on the number
> of runtimes to be supported (where 'x' is the relevant minor version
> packaged in the Fedora repos): CPython 2.x, PyPy 1.x, Python 3.x (with
> shared site-packages)
I
On 08/14/2012 05:12 PM, Konstantin Zemlyak wrote:
> [Bohuslav Kabrda]
>> Here is a wild idea: Would it be possible to create a common
>> site-packages directory for all runtimes? I don't know much about how
>> different runtimes handle bytecode generated by another runtime etc,
>> but it may be wor
FWIW an old idea I had for revamping how we maintain Python packages
can
be seen here:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/python-devel/2010-March/000213.html
with some further ideas here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DaveMalcolm/PythonIdeas
(you can tell that page is old, it still mentions
gt; both
> > > 2 and 3 should come *before* that symlink gets flipped rather
> > > than
> > > after.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Nick.
> > >
> >
> > Ok, then I would suggest using Tom Spura's idea about making only
>
*before* that symlink gets flipped rather than
> > > after.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Nick.
> > >
> >
> > Ok, then I would suggest using Tom Spura's idea about making only
> > python2- and python3- packages (maybe with the virtua
> > From an end user perspective, having things mostly compatible with
> > both
> > 2 and 3 should come *before* that symlink gets flipped rather than
> > after.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Nick.
> >
>
> Ok, then I would suggest using Tom Spura's i
> also start helping various upstreams with switching to python 3 and see where
> this will take us. Does that sound good?
That sounds pretty sensible to me. One sticking point may be upstreams
that still want to support RHEL 5, since supporting both 2.4 and 3.x out
of the same code ba
gt;
> Cheers,
> Nick.
>
Ok, then I would suggest using Tom Spura's idea about making only python2- and
python3- packages (maybe with the virtual python- provides for python2-
packages, as Toshio has mentioned). We could target this for F19 and we could
also start helping vari
On 08/03/2012 11:15 PM, tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote:
> What is the benefit of using python3 as primary version in Fedora, Other
> than generate at lot of extra work for developers.
> Python3 is just like another language, so you will put
> extra maintenance work on developers who make system tool
On 08/06/2012 04:22 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> The only distribution that has switched is arch. When they did there was
> a big uproar about how arch was doing something wrong which eventually
> resulted in that PEP.
Yeah, we mainly wrote PEP 394 in order to nudge *everyone else* into
providing
On 08/04/2012 02:19 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> I suggest that you start by asking nicely what things need to be done to
> port those things to python2 and then go to work on doing them. Trying to
> force a change via the Feature process is reversing the order of things.
> Features don't exist to
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 03:50:56AM -0400, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 04:42:02AM -0400, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> > > - Original Message -
> > > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > >
work. Features
> > exist to
> > showcase and coordinate the work that you are doing.
> >
>
> Ok, I probably didn't make myself clear. What I meant was making Python 3
> the default, not dropping Python 2 support. Therefore all the projects can
> still use python2 in
- Original Message -
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 04:42:02AM -0400, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > I'd like to start a discussion about the release where we
> > > > should
> >
the
default, not dropping Python 2 support. Therefore all the projects can still
use python2 in shebangs/whatever. What I mean to achieve by this is saying
"hey, we're switching to Python 3, it's default from now on and you should
start porting your code and stop writing python
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 03:55:26AM -0400, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> - Original Message - (From Nick)
> >
> > I believe Fedora uses Python for more core OS infrastructure than
> > Ubuntu
> > does, so it's a bigger migration challenge. Does anaconda run on
> > Python
> > 3? Does yum?
> >
>
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> Hi,
> I'd like to start a discussion about the release where we should switch to
> Python 3. As I have learned recently, Ubuntu 12.10 will have Python 3 as
> default [1], which makes me a sad panda :(
> We always take pride in being close t
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:43 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 08/03/2012 04:57 PM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> > We always take pride in being close to upstream and having the bleeding
> edge. Python 3 is stable and more and more libraries support it. So I'd
> like to propose an idea to switch to Python
- Original Message -
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I'd like to start a discussion about the release where we should
> > switch to Python 3. As I have learned recently, Ubuntu 12.10 will
> > have Python 3 as default [1], which makes me a sad panda :(
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> Hi,
> I'd like to start a discussion about the release where we should switch to
> Python 3. As I have learned recently, Ubuntu 12.10 will have Python 3 as
> default [1], which makes me a sad panda :(
> We always take pride in being close
- Original Message -
> On 08/03/2012 04:57 PM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I'd like to start a discussion about the release where we should
> > switch to Python 3. As I have learned recently, Ubuntu 12.10 will
> > have Python 3 as default [1], which makes me a sad panda :(
>
> Just
On 08/03/2012 04:57 PM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> Hi,
> I'd like to start a discussion about the release where we should switch to
> Python 3. As I have learned recently, Ubuntu 12.10 will have Python 3 as
> default [1], which makes me a sad panda :(
Just to clarify Ubuntu's Python 3 plans: they'
Hi,
I'd like to start a discussion about the release where we should switch to
Python 3. As I have learned recently, Ubuntu 12.10 will have Python 3 as
default [1], which makes me a sad panda :(
We always take pride in being close to upstream and having the bleeding edge.
Python 3 is stable and
27 matches
Mail list logo
