Hi Job,
On 2019-10-09 02:00, Job Snijders wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:23 PM Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 2019-10-08 23:47, Fred Baker wrote:
>> > That all fine, and as predictable as you say. What would very helpful
>> > would be a road map: if you’re using {windows X|Mac X|Linux
>> > X|whatever}, we think you should look at tools {D,E,F}.
>> >
>> > Speaking personally, I am on a Mac and using XMLmind with Fenner’s
>> > tools. They mostly worked (note the past tense) except when they
>> > didn’t. Telling me “well, ABCDEF supports <IETF tools du jour if you
>> > can read Sanskrit>“ doesn’t quite work.
>> >
>> > I used to write in NROFF. I’ll do what it takes. But really?
>>
>> I'm sorry if the text wasn't clear enough. The roadmap is this: Please
>> install Python 3.5 or higher on your system, and install coming versions
>> of xml2rfc using the 'pip3' command which is part of that Python install.
>>
>> When we got to the xml2rfc 3.0.0 release, I had planned to update the
>> release note with the information about using pip3, but I'm perfectly
>> happy saying it now, too.
>>
>> Of course, if your default python is Python 3.5 or higher already, then
>> using plain 'pip' to install will continue to work.
>
> We should note that the potential for pip/pip3 confusion is a result
> of how the python community approached this transition (acknowleding
> what their options were in context of how the packaging eco system was
> set up). Not ideal, but it is what it is.
>
> I think it would be good to update public facing documentation about
> xml2rfc that pip3 must be used, to make it very clear that any version
> of xml2rfc is not expected to work correctly on python2 systems.
Right.
> Perhaps the final update to xml2rfc 2.x series should be to add a
> check at boot whether the python interpreter's major version is lower
> than 3, and if so, exit the xml2rfc program with an informative
> message and a non-zero exit code, inform the user that python3 must be
> used? Sometimes it is better to just break fast & early.
I think that message will come through clearly on first attempt at
installing the first xml2rfc version requiring Python 3, as I expect
that to tell the user that 'this version of xml2rfc requires Python 3',
but I'll do some testing when I come to that point. Better to fail
during that installation, but still leave the user and system with a
working (though out-of date) version of xml2rfc, than to install a
version that cannot be used to do work.
> Between the name of the tool (note the 2 in "xlm2rfc"), the industry's
> transition from python 2 to python 3, and IETF's transition from the
> v2 to the v3 RFC XML format, it is no surprise to me end users easily
> become confused. A simple strong message that python2 can't be used
> might be helpful, even if it appears somewhat unforgiving.
Yes. I'd still like to leave the user with a system which hasn't been
robbed of the xml2rfc functionality as a result of installing 'the last
2.x release of xml2rfc'.
Best regards,
Henrik
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
