Is it worth back porting PEP 3147 to Python < 3.2?

Barry Warsaw barry at
Tue Apr 20 20:39:14 BST 2010

On Apr 20, 2010, at 06:50 AM, Omer Zak wrote:

>My take of the situation:
>Yes, please backport PEP 3147 to at least Python 2.7.
>The rationale: we'll need to support both Python 2.x and Python 3.x for
>several years, and it will be nice if the same library package can be
>made to support both 2.x and 3.x.
>It would also be nice to define a way to specify that a tree of Python
>2.7 scripts are to be compiled into Python 3.x bytecode, by specifying
>that the compilation process has first to run 2to3
>( on the
>Python scripts and actually compile the 2to3's output.

If we can come up with a reasonable way to make that work, then I'd be in
favor of back porting the PEP to Python 2.x.  Has anybody run a systematic
test to see which of the Python packages that are available in Debian work in
Python 3 with an automatic 2to3 conversion?  Probably the trickiest part will
be working out the dependences (i.e. if a package you're dependent on isn't
2to3'able, then you aren't either).

I do think that if we back port to 2.7 we should also back port to 2.6.  While
I don't yet know what the default Python version will be for Ubuntu 10.10, I
can certainly imagine it might be 2.6, with 2.7 available but not default.  If
so, then it definitely makes sense to back port to both.  If 10.10 includes
only Python 2.7, then sure, we'll only back port to that version.

I guess the same kind of systematic test for package compatibility with Python
3 would be useful to run for compatibility with Python 2.7.  Does such a thing

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : 

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list