On 5 April 2018 at 13:23, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:58:57AM +0200, Petr Viktorin wrote: >> And if you read the original mail to the end, you'll find that our >> position is not as black-and-white as it might look from the Subject >> line. >> As Python SIG we maintain old Python versions like 2.6 or 3.3 >> *today* – but just for developers who need to test backwards >> compatibility of their upstream libraries; we don't want to see them >> used as a base for Fedora packages. Why? To make sure Fedora >> packages work with modern Python, and to have only one >> time-sensitive place to concentrate on when a critical security fix >> comes. We want to put Python 2.7 in the same situation. > > Sorry I'm a late to this thread. Have you considered making the > "legacy" python 2.7 a module? This would provide a clear way to define > the lifecycle and service level expectations. But it's not python2 itself going that is really the painful part of this ... it's the various python2-* packages going bye-bye as maintainers (are already) dropping them... even when they still work. Having a module of python2 does nothing at all to solve the actual bit of pain we are already facing. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
