Hi, On 2/27/21 3:52 PM, Takashi Kajinami wrote:
I have posted a comment on the said patch but I prefer using pyvers in that specific patch because; - The change seems to be a backport candidate and using pyvers helps us backport the change to older branches like Train which still supports python 2 IIRC.
Even Rocky is already using python3 in Debian/Ubuntu. The last distro using the Python 2 version would be Stretch (which is long EOLed) and Bionic (at this time, people should be moving to Focal, no ?, which IMO are not targets for backports. Therefore, for this specific patch, even if you want to do a backport, it doesn't make sense. Are you planning to do such a backport for the RPM world?
- We still use pyvers in the other modules so it would make sense to have consistent implementation before we actually remove usage of pyvers from all modules.
The fact that we're using pyvers in other modules isn't relevant, because I'm hereby proposing to remove such a usage.
Personally I prefer keeping pyvers because it doesn't make much effort but helps us just in case we have Python4 in a future (though I don't know when it really comes) or any distro changes package name format from python3- to python- or any different style. There will *not* be any python4, ever. Upstream python people clearly expressed themselves about it.
On the Debian/Ubuntu side of things, we don't plan on ever changing our policy, so packages will stay as "python3-<FOO>". It does add some effort to use a ${pyvers} variable, because it makes the code less readable. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)