rvp If OpenBSD 6.7 is the last version to support Python 2, how much work is it to keep a partition or machine with that around and build a PyPy3 on it for OpenBSD 6.8?
That would remove one of the giant benefits of PyPy, which is that is compatible with both 2 and 3.
Again, not every person cares about the Python Foundation's wishes for people to stop writing Python 2 code.
Suppose Google and Microsoft get together and fund the people who maintain C and C++ until they merge into a single project, and they decide it's time for everybody to stop writing C code and "get with the program" and write C++ from now on?
It's a ridiculous example, but if someone else went to the trouble of maintaining a C compiler, you wouldn't encourage them to stop and break compatibility just to be like everybody else.
That's what you're asking/expecting (at least proposing) PyPy should do. You may not have any serious expectations in that regard, but that's the expectation everybody is encouraged to have. I mean if I'm supposed to care about what's good for the mainstream or Big Tech, why don't I just use Windows? (Indeed, there are reasons).
And I feel like that's what's going on-- they're conflating cooperation with pretending their needs and other needs are the same. That's not just useless, it's insulting. It's incredibly manipulative. That's exactly why I don't like (or care about) PF.
PyPy is happy to support PyPy2. It's a separate offering, it's not developed OR hosted by the Python Foundation. It's all PyPy.
But you do need Python2 to build it. Yeah, that's a tricky bit. But after you build it, you have a project that is NOT deprecated nor unmaintained.
Let's be clear about this: IF you use GNU/Linux, they build it for you. If you use BSD though... that's where PyPy is having trouble.
I honestly don't know why, I presume it's because there aren't enough people using BSD who also use Python. I mean it's not even included by default. (Unlike most mainstream GNU/Linux distros).
No, it would 1. break PyPy's functionality, and 2. require the entire project to be reworked.
At least, until the PyPy folks fix their code to drop the dependency on Python2.
That's not a goal of PyPy, only a goal of Python Foundation.
There is another option:
If I could build Python 2 AND PyPy for OpenBSD myself, that would fix this. I doubt I can afford to host both of them, and if PF finally removes the downloads for Python 2, I presume that PyPy will host them as they're needed.
Or perhaps at some point they will work the PyPy tree into being able to build PyPy without building a "separate" project first. That would be lovely.
I hope at some point they will address this. I may even move towards NetBSD if it continues to support Python 2 and OpenBSD doesn't. Python is the primary software I use on a computer. Even my text editor uses it.
As long as the much larger number of PyPy users are on GNU/Linux, they may not have the resources to support more than one BSD (And sadly, FreeBSD seems to have the most users.)
But even if they fully supported FreeBSD (They don't) That would likely have a tree that could be used by someone (even me) to build it for OpenBSD or NetBSD.
That would be lovely as well.
I started using GNU/Linux 20 years ago. I'm done with it, I have no more use for it. I'm not going back to it for this.
But OpenBSD without Python 2 isn't an OS that will ever make me happy. It may fix most of the other problems (that's why I moved to it) and until a few days ago, it solved this as well.
I just wrote an article about leaving GNU/Linux this week. Not to brag (I honestly don't know how much this is in relative terms) but based on the other stuff I've done, it will probably get tens of thousands of views. It's probably too colourful to link to from here.
I wrote it before the migration was complete. This matter is a concern for the day after migration. I'm only running BSD on my machines.
As long as a group of people (like the PyPy authors) are willing to maintain a program that users find valuable, the idea that they should not do that just for the good of the Python Foundation's (commercially-tainted) ambitions makes no sense.
I'm not against commercialisation-- it's okay. I am against the corruption of non-profit orgs into cheap, often unpaid labour for powerful multinationals. (This isn't about copyleft vs. permissive, I would be alright with copyright being abolished and de Raadt makes an interesting argument for permissive based on contracts being more complicated.)
It's about work being done without pay, which is alright (by me) if it benefits all humanity-- including corporations-- so long as it isn't manipulated into benefiting for-profits much to the exclusion of all others. (OpenBSD doesn't generally have this problem. I'm arguing Python does and has for quite some time.)
Just like the DOJ barely goes after monopolies, we hold 501c3 orgs that take money from for-profit corporations to very low standards. I think they sometimes represent those corporations more than their own mission-- and they're really not supposed to. The mission statement isn't really optional. But we are talking about things that vary from country to country as well.
But like I said, that's its own topic. And I'll keep sidestepping that one, not because I don't talk about it all the time elsewhere-- but because I'm pretty sure it would be an uncomfortable topic here. I'll try to avoid mentioning it here in the future.
The circular argument being used against the public (and I do think it's dishonest and misleading-- though it's sort of innocent when it comes from people who don't do it on purpose, but because it "seems legit") is this:
This is deprecated, it's not our job to maintain it, please stop using this.
It's NOT the Python Foundation's job to maintain it. (Nor do I put the onus on the BSD developers, though I do think it's a shame.)
The circle in the argument is that people should stop using it because it's unsupported and everybody has moved on to Python 3.
No matter how large (or well-maintained) the project is that depends on Python 2, they're going to keep telling people that the thing to do is move to Python 3 because nobody uses it and its not maintained, even when it is.
The Python Foundation gave $10,000 to PyPy devs, but now they want people to just abandon one of its (PyPy's) best features, just because it would be a help to someone at PyPy's expense.
It's up to Python Foundation what Python Foundation does. Okay. But then it's not up to PyPy what PyPy does-- they should do what PF says. It's not up to me what I do, I should do what PF says and do things their way.
It's just not honest. What it really is, is lying to the public for the convenience of one party over another. But it's not for my convenience. That part is simply a lie. Not only is it dishonest, but it ultimately rests on something that applies only to PF, but doesn't apply to anybody else. Special pleading, begging the question, appeal to novelty or argumentum ad populum? No matter how you approach it, it's dubious-- but totally popular!
If it were just dishonest and insulting, that's one thing-- what's a little corporate propaganda between friends? In this instance however, it's dishonest tactics that break the software of others. I started using GNU/Linux (and then BSD) to get away from that sort of stuff. But I don't hold the BSD developers/maintainers responsible for this. It's not really their fault, and I haven't said it is.