brainstorming for UDS-N - Package Selection and Defaults

[Scott Kitterman]

On Monday, October 04, 2010 10:17:52 am Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Oct 03, 2010, at 07:33 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >On Tuesday, September 28, 2010 03:47:04 pm Allison Randal wrote:
> >> The Package Selection and Defaults track is about choosing the
> >> best-of-breed packages (applications, libraries, etc), a common task
> >> across all editions of Ubuntu. It includes considering the viability
> >> of up-and-coming new software, the decline of end-of-life packages,
> >> the risks and gains of upgrades and migrations.
> >> 
> >> What's high on your list for this area?
> >> Allison
> >
> >Python 2.7 by default for Python
> 
> +1 from me of course.  We wanted to get Python 2.7 as a supported version
> in Maverick but couldn't get there, so we talked about flipping the switch
> as soon as possible for Natty. (2.7 is available but not supported, and I
> have patched source branches and PPAs to make this change.  Scott and Doko
> both know about these.)
> 
> I am personally planning on spending a significant amount of Natty time on
> fixing build and install problems related to 2.7 (e.g. I have fixes for
> Subversion in my PPA + source branch and have engaged upstream).
> 
> > (and possibly drop Python 2.6 if the
> >
> >transition goes well).
> 
> -0.  Reading ahead a bit, I agree with Robert that we should have Python
> version overlap from LTS to LTS.  Thus I would be in favor of keeping 2.6
> support.  This would mean 2.6 supported and 2.7 default until the next LTS
> (since there won't be a 2.8).
> 
> >I'd like to see Python 2.7 default when the archive opens and then
> >assess near feature freeze if we can drop 2.6 support or not.
> 
> +1 (for the first half anyway :).
> 
> >I'd like to see us support Python3 3.1 and 3.2 with a decision for
> >what's default near feature freeze.
> 
> +1.  3.2 final is currently scheduled for January 15, 2011, though there
> has been some talk about delaying that.
> 
> >The Python part of this can't wait until UDS to decide.
> 
> Did you mean the Python 2.7 part of this?  As I mentioned I have the
> changes ready to go (they may need updating - I haven't looked at them in
> a few weeks), but I don't have upload rights.
> 
Yes.  The Python3  part of it can wait.  I explicitly want to keep 3.1 and 3.2 
in Natty so we can get a good actual run of multiple version support for 
Python3.

Scott K