Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 15:16:47 -0700 From: Pete Wright <pete@nomadlogic.org> To: Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org>, "D.-C. M." <my-roaming-data@outlook.com>, "kde@FreeBSD.org" <kde@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "ports@FreeBSD.org" <ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: py27-qt5-core / Py36-qt5-core Message-ID: <67cf2069-85d7-7531-6177-e4d258009df9@nomadlogic.org> In-Reply-To: <71bf65f9-20ad-a30c-0fdd-bc78b31e666c@FreeBSD.org> References: <AM5PR0901MB1139637F840990FAB019C890A9AC0@AM5PR0901MB1139.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com> <c600a76b-b01c-6a65-c0c4-ecb2bd7ff105@FreeBSD.org> <8b5a9d2d-3373-f164-9a1d-e3acf19e1ec9@nomadlogic.org> <71bf65f9-20ad-a30c-0fdd-bc78b31e666c@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 03/27/2018 15:06, Guido Falsi wrote: > On 03/28/18 00:00, Pete Wright wrote: >>> I'm not a python expert, but I understand that python 2.7 and python 3 >>> are two slightly different languages not fully compatible with each >>> other. >>> >>> I also understand(but have not gone into depth about this) that there is >>> some resistance to python 3, with many developers being reluctant to >>> move to version 3, for whatever reason(I imagine it's language design >>> choices, but I really don't know) >>> >>> I'm stating this because it means such incompatibilities are not going >>> away easily. It's not just a ports system problem, but an actual python >>> ecosystem problem. >>> >>> Too say it in other words, python 2.7 isn't really just "the old >>> version" and python 3 is not just "the new version". They have parallel >>> lifes. >> I'm not %100 sure that's really an accurate assessment of the slow >> uptake in Python3. > I'd like to make it clear I don't know the details, I just stated what I > heard. I know this could not be accurate. sorry - that came out wrong - i wasn't trying to be combative! i'm in the same boat as you here :) > >> Regardless, the clock is ticking on the 2.x codebase >> as it is reaching EOL status in 2020: >> >> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0373/ >> >> Hopefully a solid deadline (which has already been pushed back) will >> motivate developers to accelerate the task of migrating to py3 sooner >> rather than later. > Speaking strictly as the maintainer of the calibre port and having > discovered just now about this deadline: > > I don't know what the calibre developer plans to do about this, I'm > certainly unable to port calibre to python 3, so I will do the best to > keep it working for as long as python 2.7 is available in the ports, or > update the port to use python 3 once the upstream does port it to that > version. > this is a really tricky situation to be in no doubt, i wonder if surfacing concerns about the impending 2.x EOL with upstream maintainers would be a good way to nudge them into supporting py3? it's certainly possible that the deadline in pep-373 hasn't been widely disseminated to the developer community? i'm not super active in the python community to be honest - but in my role as a systems engineer this is something i've highlighted with teams whose code i help support and have had mixed success with. usually along the lines of "hey, so py2.7 is EOL'ing in 2020 do we have a document with our migration strategy?" cheers, -pete -- Pete Wright pete@nomadlogic.org @nomadlogicLA
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?67cf2069-85d7-7531-6177-e4d258009df9>