[arch-dev-public] Add active Python versions to the repos

Doug Newgard scimmia at archlinux.org
Sat Nov 21 17:24:40 UTC 2020

On Sat, 21 Nov 2020 16:59:21 +0000
Filipe Laíns via arch-dev-public <arch-dev-public at archlinux.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 2020-11-21 at 16:58 +0100, Andreas Radke via arch-dev-public
> wrote:
> > Am Sat, 21 Nov 2020 14:34:24 +0000
> > schrieb Filipe Laíns via arch-dev-public
> > <arch-dev-public at archlinux.org>:
> > 
> >   
> > > Does anyone have any big issue with this? What are your thoughts?
> > > 
> > > [1] https://www.python.org/downloads/
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > Filipe Laíns  
> > 
> > -1
> > 
> > Arch is yours. Whoever needs more and older releases on the system -
> > just do it yourself! In the past we said "use abs and AUR - Arch is
> > the base to make it your own".  
> This argument can be used to deny adding any package to the repos. You
> need this library, tool, etc.? Just add it yourself.
> Why are we packaging software that is used by far less people but we
> can't package these Python interpreters which are being actively missed
> by people?
> > I don't want to see users raising bugs that something doesn't work
> > with an older version of python. And I don't want to see these
> > requests
> > pop up every now and then to add even more stuff in different
> > versions.  
> We already have multiple versions of Java, Ruby, Javascript, etc. hell,
> even Python. I don't think having people opening bugs because they are
> deliberately using an older version of Python is a big problem. It
> hasn't been for any of the other languages, I don't think it will be
> here.
> I think this is an hypothetical that doesn't really materialize into
> reality.
> > It's sad enough we still have python2 and gtk2 around. To have gcc9
> > around and other duplicates is not what I want to see growing in
> > Arch.   
> What you call sad I call a bad UX. Why do we need to force users to
> compile active releases of the Python interpreters themselves, which
> can take a long time if they are building with optimization, or to
> resort to pre-built repos with much lower security standards than us,
> when there are people willing to maintain them?
> I can't understand how it's sad to help out users by not forcing them
> to resort the sort of things I mentioned above, as long as we are not
> struggling to do so. I like helping people, that's why I am a packager,
> that is the opposite of sad for me, so I really can't understand this.

It's more concerning to me that you can't understand this argument than
anything else so far. Arch keeps old things around in the repos when they're
required by other things in the repos. It's a necessary evil, not something to
be actively encouraged.

> > I don't want to see our distribution transformed into another Debian.  
> That is not what is happening.
> Cheers,
> Filipe Laíns

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20201121/093c9b1b/attachment.sig>

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list