On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 16:53 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:45:05AM -0500, David Malcolm wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:55 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > This reasoning (needed for testing) doesn't appeal to me at all. The > > > general case should be that we switch applications in rawhide from python2 > > > to python3. Test those packages in rawhide. If it works, then the nex > > > version of Fedora ships with those scripts using the python3 interpreter. > > > > I ran this on my F-12 laptop (running a mix of software, with a local > > build of python3 and python3-setuptools): > > [david@brick ~]$ (for f in /usr/bin/* ; do (file --brief $f | grep > > python > /dev/null) && echo $f ; done) > python-executables.txt > > [david@brick ~]$ wc -l python-executables.txt > > 142 python-executables.txt > > > > I think that we can usefully split these python scripts into two > > categories, as follows. For those in the first category it makes sense > > to keep both python 2 and python 3 versions around. For those in the > > second, we'd want to gradually move them over to Python 3 as the > > dependencies are ported (which in itself is a large task...) > > > I think this is the right general approach. I wouldn't express the > categoriesin quite the same manner, though: > > > = Support files for the Python language = > > These scripts are for working with the language itself, or a stack/major > > library built on top of Python; a Python developer would typically want > > both versions available for use, or for testing: > > /usr/bin/2to3 > > /usr/bin/2to3-3 > > /usr/bin/bpython > > /usr/bin/coverage > > /usr/bin/django-admin > > /usr/bin/easy_install > > /usr/bin/easy_install-2.6 > > /usr/bin/easy_install-3.1 > > /usr/bin/g-ir-scanner > > /usr/bin/idle > > /usr/bin/idle3 > > /usr/bin/pydoc > > /usr/bin/pydoc3 > > /usr/bin/pygtk-demo > > /usr/bin/python2 > > /usr/bin/python2.6-config > > /usr/bin/python3.1-config > > /usr/bin/python3-config > > /usr/bin/python-config > > /usr/bin/testosterone > > > When I look at these, I think the basic test I'd make is: do the binaries > provide different functionality depending on whether you run the python2 or > python3 version? Something like 2to3 is an example of something that does > not need to have both a python2 and python3 version. It takes py2 input > files and outputs py3 files. There should not be any difference whether > it's invoked with the python2 interpreter or the python3 interpreter. (OTOH, > I can see making an exception to the general rule for things that are > shipped in the python3 upstream package, which would allow 2to3 in). I like this; I've written up some notes on this here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Python3#Executables_in_.2Fusr.2Fbin > Some of these I know are correct to be in this list (bpython, easy_install > [although that's a limitation of easy_install; could be fixed in the > future]), pygtk-demo, python*-config. > > Others I'm not sure: coverage, django-admin, g-ir-scanner, idle, > testosterone. The question is basically: Does the program only operate on > python2 xor python3 depending on which interpreter it was built with? > > Are coverage and testosterone only able to evaluate python modules that are > of matching type? (Could be yes if they're attempting to run those modules > in process). Yes for both of these. [snip questions about other executables] -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
