[aur-general] python2-simpleparse replaces python-simpleparse / balazar removal
python-simpleparse [1] is not supporting python 3.x atm. I just uploaded a package with correct naming. balazar [2] depends on python 2.x, the project is abandoned and the app segfaults just after the main menu, so the package can be scratched IMO. Guess my request was ignored last week after I mentioned it on irc... ;-P [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11339 [2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=20842 cheers mar77i
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Martti Kühne <mysatyre@gmail.com> wrote:
python-simpleparse [1] is not supporting python 3.x atm. I just uploaded a package with correct naming. balazar [2] depends on python 2.x, the project is abandoned and the app segfaults just after the main menu, so the package can be scratched IMO. Guess my request was ignored last week after I mentioned it on irc... ;-P
[1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=11339 [2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=20842
Deleted both of them, thanks.
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Martti Kühne <mysatyre@gmail.com> wrote:
python-simpleparse [1] is not supporting python 3.x atm. I just uploaded a package with correct naming.
cheers mar77i
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@gmail.com>wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Martti Kühne <mysatyre@gmail.com> wrote:
Deleted both of them, thanks.
It seems to me that having two packages (python-* and python2-*) would make sense only if that package worked _both_ with python2 and python3. In this particular case, where simpleparse works with python2 only, I don't understand why we can't have it with the original name depending on python2. There are two main advantages: 1) You don't have unnecessary dupes, making it easier for someone searching for packages. Also you would avoid having a package that does not work but isn't outdated or needing any kind of work (besides changing python version). 2) Someone who installed python-simpleparse some months ago would have his package updated and working without any extra work. Please understand that I'm just a normal user and my opinion is worth almost nothing. However, because I adopted a few fine packages that only needed some python2 work, I really wanted to bring this up and understand what is the better way to solve it. Should all foo packages that stopped working because of python3 be deleted and replaced with python2-foo? It doesn't make any sense to me.
On 15/12/10 13:45, Joao Cordeiro wrote:
It seems to me that having two packages (python-* and python2-*) would make sense only if that package worked _both_ with python2 and python3. In this particular case, where simpleparse works with python2 only, I don't understand why we can't have it with the original name depending on python2.
We could do that, yes. However, since he already uploaded a python2- package, there was no reason not to delete the python- package.
Please understand that I'm just a normal user and my opinion is worth almost nothing. However, because I adopted a few fine packages that only needed some python2 work, I really wanted to bring this up and understand what is the better way to solve it.
Should all foo packages that stopped working because of python3 be deleted and replaced with python2-foo? It doesn't make any sense to me.
Your sense of the preferred course of action is correct; packages should be renamed lazily. This means that, packages that are not compatible with Python 3 should keep their existing naming. If and when a Python 3 compatible version comes out, a python2- package will be created that will install the module for Python 2, and the python- package will be updated and install the module for Python 3.
participants (3)
-
Evangelos Foutras
-
Joao Cordeiro
-
Martti Kühne