<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/20/21 5:52 PM, Jeremy Hansen
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CANi9qSthaUOgRwvTeZtWbbVvZ1Ehh2esV47WbrjP_D88oMvy1w@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Apr 20, 2021, 2:59
PM Barry J. Grundy <<a href="mailto:bgrundy@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">bgrundy@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I know
this has come up before and perhaps been answered and I've
also <br>
read through the related threads on LQ, but I still have
not seen a <br>
definitive answer (if there is one):<br>
<br>
Since python2 is EOL and -current/15 ships with python3,
is it good <br>
practice now to build python packages with python3 by
default? If so, <br>
then what's the best way to handle the multiple versions?
This <br>
discussion was had on the list back in Feb of '19, but I
don't see <br>
anything definitive.<br>
<br>
For example, I maintain dpkt. The version in the -current
(ponce's) <br>
repo works, but I have an update ready to go when
submissions open <br>
again. Right now dpkt builds for python2. Here's my
question:<br>
<br>
My "ready to go" update switches to python3 by default and
uses a <br>
"PYTHON2=yes" option to build python2 modules if the user
wants. Would <br>
it be better to create python3-dpkt and leave the dpkt
script at <br>
python2? I see it both ways in the 14.2 repo.<br>
<br>
Another probably better example is distorm, which is a
requirement for <br>
volatility (which is python2 only). volatility3 is a
separate re-write <br>
for python3 with different prerequisites (and I already
have a <br>
slackbuild to submit for that when things open again). So
for <br>
volatility it makes sense to leave distorm as is. I can
submit a <br>
separate python3-distorm script when I submit volatility3.<br>
<br>
Perhaps with the submissions freeze it would be a good
time to either <br>
separate the scripts or at least decide on a "best
practice". My <br>
apologies if I'm simply kicking a dead horse here.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Barry<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">In my opinion, I think SBo for 15.0 should
default to python3 for any packages and python2 should be
something that can be optional (for those packages that
support both).</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">If there's a need to have separate python2 and
python3 packages, the python3 package should not need an
identifier in front of it, where the python2 package should
($PRGNAM for python3 and python2-$PRGNAM for python2).</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I agree with defaulting to python3 for 15.0. But right now we'd
have $PRGNAM changing to python2-$PRGNAM and python3-$PRGNAM
changing to $PRGNAM. Then when python4 comes out it would be a
repeat of the same issue (maybe). Perhaps "python$VER-$PRGNAM"
would be appropriate for everything.</p>
<p>And perhaps I'm just over thinking it. But thanks for the
responses.</p>
<p>Barry<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>