Re: python 2.x

[Benny Siegert <bsiegert%gmail.com@localhost>]

FWIW, I have been doing limited-list bulk builds with
PYTHON_VERSION_DEFAULT=37 and did not notice any particular issues.
You end up with python2.7 and a few py27 packages, for stuff that does
not build with Python 3 yet.

On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 6:48 PM Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost> wrote:
>
> coypu%sdf.org@localhost writes:
>
> > Another pkgsrc post-branch, another discussion.
> > python2 will become EOL upstream in a few months.
>
> Over 8 months!  The EOL date is January 1, 2020:
>   https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0373/
>
> So from the having-maintained-software-as-default viewpoint, together
> with our norms about making potentially destabilizing changes early in
> the branch cycle, it is necessary to change the default to some 3.x
> choice by October 15.  Other options are nowish and July 15.
>
> > Let's get a 3.x version as the default.
>
> Separately from the deadline, it's a fair question to ask if the time is
> now for the switch.
>
> Are you proposing 3.7?  Or some other version, perhaps 3.6?  What's the
> rationale for choosing among 3.x?  (Not complaining; I am just not clear
> on what's the best choice.)
>
> Do we have an idea of what the consequences would be?  Do we have any
> platforms where 2.7 builds and 3.x does not?   While pyNN-foo gets built
> multiversion, some things pick one, and hence depend on that version.
> Do we know how much would break?
>
> The end of 2.7 has been coming for a really long time.  Maybe this
> really is it.  I am getting the impression that substantially all
> maintained software (python modules) supports 3, and that larger
> programs in python are getting there.  For example, weewx is not there
> yet, but I don't see pkgsrc defaulting to 37 causing trouble for using
> weewx on 27.
>
> I expect fairly rapid progress in the upstream world making things work
> with 3.x over the rest of the year, and therefore decreasing pain from
> us switching the longer we wait.  But the pain may already be quite low.
>
> Is anybody up for doing a bulk build with the default changed?
>


-- 
Benny