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

[Filipe Laíns]

On Sat, 2020-11-21 at 11:24 -0600, Doug Newgard via arch-dev-public
wrote:
> 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 understand that. I am not asking to put all releases of Python on the
repos, only the active ones, which people are using.

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

-- 
Filipe Laíns
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20201121/62269fb4/attachment.sig>