[PATCHES] Build pytalloc for two Python versions at once, port to py3
jelmer at samba.org
Thu Mar 12 08:41:49 MDT 2015
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 03:13:26PM +0100, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> On 03/12/2015 02:09 PM, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:08:48PM +0100, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> >>On 03/05/2015 10:08 PM, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> >>>On Wed, 2015-03-04 at 15:53 +0100, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> >>>>On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 11:18:08AM +1300, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> >>>>>On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 22:09 +0100, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> >>>>>>On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 12:09:25PM +0100, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> >>>The reason I'm being so awkward is that I don't like any of the options.
> >>> - waiting forever means we:
> >>> - push aside your valuable contributions
> >>> - may never make the move
> >>I don't think the second point is true; you'd be forced to make the move
> >>eventually, most likely when Python 2 support ends in 5 years. It's good not
> >>to rush things, but waiting forever is hardly an option -- it would just
> >>make us rush things later.
> >If we move later, it saves us from a couple of years of juggling support
> >for two different Python versions. In fact, if we move late enough, we might
> >be able to just drop Python2 support altogether and just port to Python3 rather
> >than supporting both versions.
> If there were no dependencies, there might be a chance of that working.
> However, if you want to coordinate with FreeIPA or distros, it becomes
> somewhat harder.
> Also, allowing more time for the port would improve chances to do thigs
> right, rather than rushing them all at once to avoid "juggling".
We won't have to rush if we wait another year or two.
> I liked Andrew's suggestion to support only Python 2, but start putting
> unsupported py3 bits in "unofficially", so dependent projects can start
> preparing their own py3 support before the big switch.
Right, see https://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/2015-March/105949.html for
my thoughts on adding Python 3 support.
The onus for adding support of Python3 is on those who care about it, and should
not inconvenience the rest of us.
> >>> - waiting for things to improve:
> >>> - you suggest is foolish, there is no indication that the python community will
> >>> - and we don't know that someone else will be keen to do the work in the future
> >>Also, there's a non-trivial chance that my work on Samba could drive these
> >>It's been suggested a CPython list that I write a porting guide for C code.
> >>I'm quite tempted to share what I write for Samba.
> >Thanks! Upstream improvements to make it easier to support both versions
> >would be great.
> Just note I wrote *porting guide*, not upstream code.
> >I think defines to make it easier to compile 2.6 C code with Python3 belong
> >in an upstream header (perhaps hidden behind and #ifdef _COMPAT_PYTHON26 or
> >with a deprecation warning), rather than in every Python projects' source
> I don't think that is going to happen in Python itself. I can however make a
> library in the spirit of six/future for C extensions. And I probably could
> get it to be mentioned in Python docs as a best practice (along with
In that case I wouldn't be a fan of it. I hate six, it makes python programming
more complex, while the whole point of python3 was to clean up some things
about the language.
> >>> - risks restricting developers to the cumbersome common subset - yet another language, essentially
> >>That mostly applies to Python source. In the C extensions, alternatives to
> >>the removed things have usually been ported to Python 2.6, so not even an
> >>#ifdef is necesary. The main problem is deciding between bytes and unicode.
> >There are already quite a number of ifdefs in the current set of patches, and
> >this is a fairly simple module..
> The ifdefs are all* in one header file, which works for tdb & ldb as well.
> The header would be much smaller if it was just for pytalloc.
Same difference - it uses magic defines that are ifdeffed in a single place.
More information about the samba-technical