[PATCHES] Port pytalloc to Python 3

[Jelmer Vernooij]

On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 10:35:53AM -0600, José A. Rivera wrote:
> I'll chime in as a general Python user that has no immediate interest in
> using Python3. I've seen no real need/interest among my personal network of
> fellow Pythonistas to undertake the transition, either. It is a rather
> divisive topic, but in general I favor a more inclusive solution should we
> have the resources to maintain it.
We have the resources, but it's a matter of whether that is an
effective use of those resources - or whether we could use them more effectively
working on other issues in Samba.

Cheers,

Jelmer

> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Alexander Bokovoy <ab at samba.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer at samba.org> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 10:12:08AM -0500, Simo wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 2014-12-08 at 14:22 +0100, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> > >> > On 12/05/2014 02:50 PM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> > >> > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Petr Viktorin <pviktori at redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> > >>>>> For talloc, tdb and ldb it makes sense to support both python2
> > and
> > >> > >>>>> python3. For Samba itself, the burden of maintaining support
> > for both
> > >> > >>>>> is much higher, and the benefits smaller.
> > >> > >>>>
> > >> > >>>> Yes. However, talloc/tdb/ldb support for both Python2 and Python3
> > >> > >>>> means there is need to improve our build system to support both
> > Python
> > >> > >>>> versions so this task is relevant.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Just to clarify: Are you just saying it needs to be possible to
> > build Samba
> > >> > >> with Python 3?
> > >> > >> Or are you proposing that the modules for both Python 2 and 3 be
> > built in
> > >> > >> the same configure/make run? It seems (to me, currently) that this
> > would
> > >> > >> require rather big changes in Waf, while a configure-time switch
> > for the
> > >> > >> Python version is practically free.
> > >> > > The latter because how otherwise would you be able to package both
> > >> > > python2 and python3 modules when packaging Samba?
> > >> > > We are not going to have two more samba packages differing in their
> > >> > > python bindings.
> > >> >
> > >> > Right.
> > >> > Since that the stand-alone libraries will need to support both
> > versions
> > >> > for a longer time, it does make sense to invest in adding this to the
> > >> > build system. I'll put some effort into that.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> I do not think it is reasonable to drop Python 2 support in the short
> > >> term. We have a ton of people still recompiling and installing on older
> > >> OSs that do not have Python 3, and I am not talking only about
> > >> RHEL/CentOS 6 or older Ubuntu LTS but also other Unix flavors.
> > > Python3 was released in 2008. All supported Ubuntu LTS releases (lucid
> > and
> > > later) ship Python3. Does RHEL 6 not?
> > No, it does not, and RHEL7 does not ship Python3 in the base either.
> > We (Red Hat) are willing to work on Python 3 support to eventually get
> > everything off the Python2 but reality is much different. Python2
> > support was extended to 2020 "thanks" to realization that people are
> > using this language actively and many of those use cases have no
> > incentives to move over to a slightly different language named
> > Python3.
> >
> > So killing Python2 support in Samba would be short-sighted. However,
> > Petr's team (Developer Experience) is looking forward to ease Python
> > bindings maintenance burden so that both Python2 and Python3 bindings
> > can co-exist in Samba.
> >
> > >> Forcing people to recompile Python 3 on those systems just to get Samba
> > >> to run on them seem a little bit excessive. (And please do not propose
> > >> to embed a version of python3 in our sources or my head will explode! :)
> > > I agree shipping Python3 sources is a terrible idea. :-)
> > >
> > > This would only affect those people that want a new *major* version of
> > Samba
> > > and run an OS that ships Python2 but not Python3, in a year from now. Is
> > > that really going to affect more than a handful of people?
> > >
> > > If these users are really an issue, then let's just wait some more time
> > until
> > > we attempt a migration from Python2 to Python3.
> > Maybe. Let's see how large will be the effort to make Python2 and
> > Python3 bindings buildable in waf that Petr is looking at now.
> > This is something that will be required anyway for libraries and can
> > be used as a canary to see how far can we go.
> >
> > --
> > / Alexander Bokovoy
> >