From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28884 invoked by alias); 10 Oct 2014 08:07:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 28873 invoked by uid 89); 10 Oct 2014 08:07:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 08:07:51 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s9A87jIX030199 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 10 Oct 2014 04:07:45 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-112-17.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.17]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s9A87h14020496; Fri, 10 Oct 2014 04:07:44 -0400 Message-ID: <543793CE.9090109@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 08:07:00 -0000 From: Phil Muldoon MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii CC: dje@google.com, stanshebs@earthlink.net, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Deprecating (and deleting) user-facing APIs [was Re: Why do functions objfpy_new and pspy_new exist?] References: <54378CC0.2060602@redhat.com> <834mvcbbxd.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <834mvcbbxd.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg00236.txt.bz2 On 10/10/14 08:50, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 08:37:36 +0100 >> From: Phil Muldoon >> CC: gdb-patches >> >> So let me propose something. From GDB 8 on-wards, lets only support >> Python 3.x. If this is too early, maybe 8.1 or 8.2. Anyway, we >> message this consistently and continuously to the community. Document >> it in all the right high traffic places. What do folks think? > > No, please don't unsupport Python 2.x, not yet. I'm still using > Python 2.x based applications (e.g., bzr), and I'd like to avoid > having 2 different versions of Python on the same machine, if > possible. I expect some push back from distro maintainers too. So this feedback is all good; it might be that logistically for our users this might not be possible at all. So that is what I would really love to hear - thanks for letting me (and GDB) know. However, 8.2 is quite far off. Do you know of any plans in the future for your distro to support two Python versions or switch to 3? FWIW later versions of Fedora supports both Pythons, and I think (though I cannot find the link right now), have plans to move entirely to Python 3. Anyway, thanks for the feedback. I do realize this might be a case of sharing GDB Python developers' pain with others a little. Cheers Phil