#45810 closed request (fixed)
py-emcee: Please add Python 3.4 port
| Reported by: | cdeil (Christoph Deil) | Owned by: | lpsinger (Leo Singer) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | Normal | Milestone: | |
| Component: | ports | Version: | |
| Keywords: | Cc: | lpsinger (Leo Singer) | |
| Port: | py-emcee |
Description
Could someone please add a Python 3.4 port for py-emcee?
Change History (7)
comment:1 Changed 9 years ago by lpsinger (Leo Singer)
| Owner: | changed from macports-tickets@… to aronnax@… |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → assigned |
comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by cdeil (Christoph Deil)
I think the policy is to keep 2.6, 2.7, 3.3 and 3.4 for now if I remember the discussion on the mailing list correctly. I.e. only drop 3.2 and add 3.4 at this time.
comment:3 follow-up: 4 Changed 9 years ago by cdeil (Christoph Deil)
I've been filing a few "please add 3.4" issues in the past months ... I think it's OK to assume that anything that works on 3.3 does work on 3.4 too and just add this for all Python ports.
What do you think? Should be easy to compile a list of missing 3.4 ports, no?
comment:4 Changed 9 years ago by lpsinger (Leo Singer)
Replying to Deil.Christoph@…:
I've been filing a few "please add 3.4" issues in the past months ... I think it's OK to assume that anything that works on 3.3 does work on 3.4 too and just add this for all Python ports.
What do you think?
Python 3.4 is more like Python 2.7 than Python 3.3 in treatment of Unicode, as I understand. I don't think that we can assume, but if the plan is to phase out everything but 2.7 and 3.4 then we should start finding out what is broken.
Should be easy to compile a list of missing 3.4 ports, no?
Sure:
$ (for vv in 26 27 31 32 33; do port echo py${vv}-\*; done) | cut -c 6- | sort | uniq > /tmp/old
$ port echo py34-\* | cut -c 6- | sort > /tmp/new
$ comm -23 /tmp/old /tmp/new
I get 573 such ports.
comment:5 follow-up: 6 Changed 9 years ago by cdeil (Christoph Deil)
My guess would be that only very few % of Python packages that work on 2.7 and 3.3 don't work properly on 3.4. It's almost impossible to find those, because many projects don't have proper PyPI classifiers and tests are run differently for each package and some don't have tests.
I think it would be OK to just add 3.4 for all that have 2.7 AND 3.3 in Macports and then for the handful of packages (or less) that don't work properly on 3.4 users will file issues over the coming months. Real world testing. :-)
Should we create a new issue for this or ask about this on the dev mailing list?
comment:6 Changed 9 years ago by lpsinger (Leo Singer)
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | assigned → closed |
Replying to Deil.Christoph@…:
My guess would be that only very few % of Python packages that work on 2.7 and 3.3 don't work properly on 3.4. It's almost impossible to find those, because many projects don't have proper PyPI classifiers and tests are run differently for each package and some don't have tests.
I think it would be OK to just add 3.4 for all that have 2.7 AND 3.3 in Macports and then for the handful of packages (or less) that don't work properly on 3.4 users will file issues over the coming months. Real world testing. :-)
Should we create a new issue for this or ask about this on the dev mailing list?
Have you followed the recent threads on the topic of deprecating old Python versions? It sounds like you have an idea for streamlining the process. If so, by all means, please do share it on the list.
Fixed in r127918.
comment:7 Changed 9 years ago by cdeil (Christoph Deil)
Thanks for adding 3.4 for emcee.
OK, I'll ask about batch-adding 3.4 on macports-dev.
Sure. Is this an OK time to drop 2.6, 3.2, and 3.3, as we have done for many other ports now?