[Slackbuilds-users] six and python3-six
pprkut at liwjatan.at
Tue Oct 30 17:57:03 UTC 2018
On Tuesday, 30 October 2018 17:55:59 CET Tim Dickson via SlackBuilds-users
> On 29/10/2018 12:44, Rich Shepard wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, B Watson wrote:
> >> Do we need separate six and python3-six builds?
> >> Right now, six will build & install python3 support if python3 is
> >> installed on the build box. python3-six is identical, except (a) it
> >> requires python3 in the .info file and (b) it builds only the python3
> >> stuff.
> > I'm a Python end-user and support the idea of having one build that
> > supports both Python2 and Python3. All my new code is Python3 but many
> > applications remain bound to Python2. It will take a while for everyone to
> > migrate to Python3.
> > Rich
> > _______________________________________________
> > SlackBuilds-users mailing list
> > SlackBuilds-users at slackbuilds.org
> > https://lists.slackbuilds.org/mailman/listinfo/slackbuilds-users
> > Archives - https://lists.slackbuilds.org/pipermail/slackbuilds-users/
> > FAQ - https://slackbuilds.org/faq/
> six is a special case, as it is provides compatibility for scripts
> running different versions of python.
> It is useful to be able to create 2 separate packages though, a python2
> version, and a python3 version (with different package names), because
> you can have both installed at the same time. It would be hard to do
> that with only one package with options, unless the options changed the
> package name - which would then make it harder to manage with tools.
We have both python2 and python3 versions of six in a single package in -
current and it works just fine. I don't see why the package would need to be
treated differently from other python libs. What am I missing here?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the SlackBuilds-users