[PATCHES] Port pytalloc to Python 3

Petr Viktorin pviktori at redhat.com
Fri Dec 5 03:04:07 MST 2014

On 12/05/2014 10:38 AM, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-12-05 at 10:08 +0100, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>> On 11/28/2014 07:36 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 07:13:42PM +0100, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>> On 11/28/2014 06:29 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>>>>> Hi Petr,
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 03:47:30PM +0100, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>>> I've seen a discussion on this list from May 2013 [0] with some kind of
>>>>>> consensus that porting Samba is inevitable, and would be hard, but there was
>>>>>> no rush. Some posts there cite a wiki page [1] that used to warn against
>>>>>> moving prematurely, but now it says:
>>>>>>> Python 2.x is legacy, Python 3.x is the present and future of the language
>>>>> Thanks for working on this!
>>>>> I think supporting Python2 and Python3 simultaneously makes sense at least for
>>>>> our standalone libraries (talloc, ldb, tdb).
>>>>> Maintaining support for two versions of Python at the same time
>>>>> is painful and very costly. If we switch to Python3, we should drop
>>>>> Python2 shortly afterwards if not at the same time.
>>>>> With my Debian/Ubuntu hat on, dropping Python2 support is fine. What do other
>>>>> people think? Python3 was released in 2008, so surely it's made its way into
>>>>> most distributions at this point..
>>>>> A migration would also need to be coordinated with OpenChange, who
>>>>> have code that uses our Python bindings (all in Python2).
>>>> -1
>>>> There are more projects that use the bindings, and they will need time to be
>>>> ported. Some have other dependencies that aren't there yet. I know FreeIPA
>>>> uses the bindings, and porting that definitely won't happen overnight.
>>> Which major projects are there, just beside OpenChange and FreeIPA?
>>> I do of course want to accomodate the projects that use our bindings, so let's
>>> see if we can come up with a plan that is satisfactory for both of us. :)
>>> Is there any reason you couldn't just depend on a newer version of Samba once
>>> you migrate FreeIPA to Python3? Why is it essential for you Samba support multiple
>>> Python versions?
>> Well, that would essentially force the FreeIPA team to maintain a fork
>> of Samba until FreeIPA is ported. And porting FreeIPA's dependencies
>> might take some time.
> Why not leave Samba until later then, if this is a concern?
> Andrew Bartlett

If you're asking why *I* don't hold off porting Samba, it's because 
Samba it's a part of the Fedora Live DVD, and the goal is to remove 
Python 2 from that completely. Porting FreeIPA can wait until later, 
when we try to tackle the entire distro.

Speaking from my other (and very separate) role, as a FreeIPA developer: 
Python 3 is not a priority there, mainly because all the dependencies 
are not ported yet. Any of the dependencies could ask the same question 
– why not leave this one project until the end?


More information about the samba-technical mailing list