Re: switching to Python 3.x

[David Kastrup]

Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 3:33 PM David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>> >> What David is concerned about (as far as I understand) is that we need
>> >> to modify the spec for LilyPond to require the new python3 package as a
>> >> dependency. This will (obviously) not work for packaging 2.20.
>> >
>> > Fair enough, but that would only be a problem if we ever have to
>> > produce a 2.20.1 . We could delay 2.21.0 for a while.
>>
>> I prefer pushing out 2.21.0 right after 2.20.0.  It's been too long in
>> the making by far already.  And while the 2.20 release is not quite
>> within the time frame I aimed for a week ago (contact me for details), I
>> don't expect the additional delay to be able to push 2.20 beyond
>> February.
>>
>> > If we get lucky, we never have to produce a 2.20.1. If we do, we might
>> > have to backport the py3 patch.
>>
>> 2.20 is in maintenance mode for as long as 2.22 is not out yet.
>> Considering the amount of stuff stacking up on the 2.22 slate right now
>> regarding platform support alone, that is likely going to be a while.
>>
>> I don't think that Python3 will port to PowerPC, so a backport of
>> Py3-only code would entail cutting its support in the middle of the 2.20
>> lifetime.  To be honest, I already had suggested cutting it before 2.20
>> but was met with resistance.
>
> OK. So what is your proposal for how to proceed with Jonas' patch?

Different possibilities.  Probably easiest is to have different GUB
setups for LilyPond-2.20 and LilyPond-2.22.  Then we can stick with
Python2 (and PowerPC installers, yuch) for as long as 2.20 is a thing
but move on otherwise.  2.20 should be out soonish, and we definitely
don't want to have that patch gather bitrot.

-- 
David Kastrup