>> It's a release goal in Lubuntu to not have python2 on the image. > > Err, good luck. ;)
Thanks :) >> Upstream has completed in version 2.0 a port to python 3 [1][2]. > > Yes, blueman supports Python versions 2.7, and 3.2+. > > I think depending on the distribution's default python version is > exactly what the package should do and both Debian and Ubuntu currentl > have 2.7 as their default and I'm not aware of any migration plans in > the near future. My understanding is that both Debian and Ubuntu ship both python 2 and 3, but both prefer if applications use python3 [1][2]. If you referring to /usr/bin/python -> 2, that's not planned to be changed at least anytime soon [3]. python2 would be removed first. > I'd be fine to depend on something like python2.7 | python3 (>= 3.2), > but for python 3 we would have slightly different dependencies (python3- > prefixes instead of python- prefixes) and I don't know of any way to > define such dependency sets. I only know the practice to create a > separate package - blueman3 in our case - with that specific > dependencies and fitting shebang replacements for the python version. > pylint3 is an example for such a package. I'm open to a patch for the > control and rules files if you want to have that package (reserving a > veto from my mentor of course). I think waiting until it's decided to go only python3 for blueman makes more sense (and I'm not sure my packaging foo is up to doing that). Thanks! [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ch-python3.html [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2014/05/msg00037.html [3] http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0394/
