[aur-general] Remove python3-aur

Allen Li cyberdupo56 at gmail.com
Sat Mar 29 16:55:30 EDT 2014

On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 05:53:08PM +0000, xantares 09 wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 12:59:08 +0000
> > From: xyne at archlinux.ca
> > To: aur-general at archlinux.org
> > Subject: Re: [aur-general] Remove python3-aur
> > 
> > I have no intention of playing whack-a-mole with Python package names whenever
> > Python gets around to the next major version bump even if that is years away.
> > Each major version is incompatible with the previous ones and should therefore
> > be treated as a separate language. Changing the names leads to transition
> > periods of broken dependency graphs. Package names should be static and future
> > proof. This makes it easier for everyone involved (developers, packagers,
> > users).
> > 
> > There are numerous python3-* packages that have peacefully existed in the AUR
> > for years without issue. As I have so far been unable to convince others of the
> > value of persistent naming, I prefer to leave things as they are.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Xyne
> I wouldn't go as far as qualifying python3 a different laguage. It may introduce api breakage, But it's possible to adapt the same codebase to be compatible with both versions.
> They are some python3-* packages, yes, but they mostly belong to you :!
> What do we do from here ? Remove python-aur :?
> Regards,
> xan.

I don't see any problem with leaving them as python3-*.  In my mind,
python2-*, python3-* are unambiguously named, and python-* merely refers
to the "current stable".  However, I have seen python-* refer to both
python2 and python3, depending on how old the package or upstream is.

I think the best policy would be to change python-* to python2-* when
that disambiguation is necessary, and let python3-* well enough alone.
They clearly describe the package, so what's the problem?


More information about the aur-general mailing list