[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: The looming Python 3(000) monster



2008/12/9 Toshio Kuratomi <a badger gmail com>:
> Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Simo Sorce <ssorce redhat com> wrote:
>>> I would personally strongly consider having 2.x and 3.0 parallel
>>> installable ...
>>
>>
>> Isn't Python designed to be parallel installable?
>>
>>
> Yes it is.  We just want to avoid having to do that if possible because
> it could be very painful to do so.
>
> Here's the fear:
>
> python2.x
>  - python-libfoo-2.0
>    - spiffy-app-1.2
>
> python3.x
>  - python-libfoo-2.1
>    - excellent-app-1.1
>
> python-libfoo-2.0 uses the 2.x API.  python-libfoo-2.1 uses the
> python-3.x API.  In order to get spiffy-app and excellent-app into the
> distro we need to have both python2.x and python3.x versions of the
> library installed.
>
> Now a security fix is released for python-libfoo-2.1.  Does that also
> affect python-libfoo-2.0?  Can we backport the fix or are the py2.x and
> py3.x versions too different?  Do we need to have more python coders
> available to fix these errors?
>
> Here's the ideal (For Fedora, once again, this does not address
> mpdehaan's concerns):
>
> python2.6
>  - python-libfoo-2.1 (with from __future__ import *)
>  - spiffy-app-1.2
>  - excellent-app-1.1 (with from __future__ import *)
>
> If this is possible we can maintain one version of python and one
> version of the library.  The apps can both consume the library even
> though one was coded for python-3.x and the other was coded for python-2.x.
>
> Is this going to be possible or will deepseated assumptions in the new
> language prevent this?  That's something we can't know for sure until we
> actually start trying to run code in mixed mode like this.  Some people
> had great luck with this earlier in the year[1]_ but I think there were
> changes to the stdlibrary since then and I didn't trust that the author
> had done a thorough job with the unicode/string/bytes testing.
>
> So let me reiterate:
>
> * python-3.x will not be in Fedora-11 unless it becomes obvious in the
> next few weeks that we absolutely must be running it for the next release.
> * we need more experience with python-2.6+ & python-3 compatibility
> before we decide whether parallel versions of python are necessary.
>
> .. _[1]: http://python-incompatibility.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/README.txt
>
> -Toshio


Well again. Some people (like Toshio) seem to have a grasp on the
matter. All this banter hasn't produced anything more of use. How
about forming a temp SIG to take care of this trusting they do the
right thing?



-- 
Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin
( www.pembo13.com )


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]