search for: pythonclock

...talled [0] but not Python 3. * Forcing scripts to use Python 3 (by doing so we can avoid some compatibility trouble) may not be a good idea. Python 2.7 was published in 2010 and planned as the last of the 2.x releases. It will not be maintained past 2020 and there is also a retirement page https://pythonclock.org/ . The second argument would not need to be addressed if the first one did not lay too much burden on developers. After all, we have to install `cmake, ninja/GNU Make / libedit(for lldb)` to build LLVM. These packages are not installed by default on many platforms. Thoughts on deprecating Pyt...

...> * Forcing scripts to use Python 3 (by doing so we can avoid some > compatibility trouble) may not be a good idea. > > Python 2.7 was published in 2010 and planned as the last of the 2.x > releases. It will not be maintained past 2020 and there is also a > retirement page https://pythonclock.org/ . > > The second argument would not need to be addressed if the first one did > not lay too much burden on developers. After all, we have to install > `cmake, ninja/GNU Make / libedit(for lldb)` to build LLVM. These packages > are not installed by default on many platforms. >...

...not Python 3. > * Forcing scripts to use Python 3 (by doing so we can avoid some compatibility trouble) may not be a good idea. > > Python 2.7 was published in 2010 and planned as the last of the 2.x releases. It will not be maintained past 2020 and there is also a retirement page https://pythonclock.org/ <https://pythonclock.org/> . > > The second argument would not need to be addressed if the first one did not lay too much burden on developers. After all, we have to install `cmake, ninja/GNU Make / libedit(for lldb)` to build LLVM. These packages are not installed by default on m...

...not Python 3. > * Forcing scripts to use Python 3 (by doing so we can avoid some compatibility trouble) may not be a good idea. > > Python 2.7 was published in 2010 and planned as the last of the 2.x releases. It will not be maintained past 2020 and there is also a retirement page https://pythonclock.org/ . > > The second argument would not need to be addressed if the first one did not lay too much burden on developers. After all, we have to install `cmake, ninja/GNU Make / libedit(for lldb)` to build LLVM. These packages are not installed by default on many platforms. > > Thought...

.... >> * Forcing scripts to use Python 3 (by doing so we can avoid some compatibility trouble) may not be a good idea. >> >> Python 2.7 was published in 2010 and planned as the last of the 2.x releases. It will not be maintained past 2020 and there is also a retirement page https://pythonclock.org/ . >> >> The second argument would not need to be addressed if the first one did not lay too much burden on developers. After all, we have to install `cmake, ninja/GNU Make / libedit(for lldb)` to build LLVM. These packages are not installed by default on many platforms. >>...

...3 (by doing so we can avoid some >> compatibility trouble) may not be a good idea. >> >> Python 2.7 was published in 2010 and planned as the last of the >> 2.x releases. It will not be maintained past 2020 and there is >> also a retirement page https://pythonclock.org/ . >> >> The second argument would not need to be addressed if the first >> one did not lay too much burden on developers. After all, we have >> to install `cmake, ninja/GNU Make / libedit(for lldb)` to build >> LLVM. These packages are not installe...

...y doing so we can avoid some >>> compatibility trouble) may not be a good idea. >>> >>> Python 2.7 was published in 2010 and planned as the last of the 2.x >>> releases. It will not be maintained past 2020 and there is also a retirement >>> page https://pythonclock.org/ . >>> >>> The second argument would not need to be addressed if the first one did >>> not lay too much burden on developers. After all, we have to install `cmake, >>> ninja/GNU Make / libedit(for lldb)` to build LLVM. These packages are not >>> ins...

...ts to use Python 3 (by doing so we can avoid some >> compatibility trouble) may not be a good idea. >> >> Python 2.7 was published in 2010 and planned as the last of the 2.x >> releases. It will not be maintained past 2020 and there is also a retirement >> page https://pythonclock.org/ . >> >> The second argument would not need to be addressed if the first one did >> not lay too much burden on developers. After all, we have to install `cmake, >> ninja/GNU Make / libedit(for lldb)` to build LLVM. These packages are not >> installed by default on...

...ts to use Python 3 (by doing so we can avoid some >> compatibility trouble) may not be a good idea. >> >> Python 2.7 was published in 2010 and planned as the last of the 2.x >> releases. It will not be maintained past 2020 and there is also a retirement >> page https://pythonclock.org/ . >> >> The second argument would not need to be addressed if the first one did >> not lay too much burden on developers. After all, we have to install `cmake, >> ninja/GNU Make / libedit(for lldb)` to build LLVM. These packages are not >> installed by default on...

This patch proposes to drop support for Python 2 in nbdkit. Rather than abruptly drop it everywhere, my proposal is that we point people to nbdkit 1.14 (the current stable version) if they want to continue with Python 2 plugins, while gently reminding them of the upcoming Python 2.7 end of life announcement. Libnbd never supported Python 2. Libguestfs in theory supports Python 2 but I dropped

...oid some >>>> compatibility trouble) may not be a good idea. >>>> >>>> Python 2.7 was published in 2010 and planned as the last of the 2.x >>>> releases. It will not be maintained past 2020 and there is also a retirement >>>> page https://pythonclock.org/ . >>>> >>>> The second argument would not need to be addressed if the first one did >>>> not lay too much burden on developers. After all, we have to install `cmake, >>>> ninja/GNU Make / libedit(for lldb)` to build LLVM. These packages are not...

...y doing so we can avoid some >>> compatibility trouble) may not be a good idea. >>> >>> Python 2.7 was published in 2010 and planned as the last of the 2.x >>> releases. It will not be maintained past 2020 and there is also a retirement >>> page https://pythonclock.org/ . >>> >>> The second argument would not need to be addressed if the first one did >>> not lay too much burden on developers. After all, we have to install `cmake, >>> ninja/GNU Make / libedit(for lldb)` to build LLVM. These packages are not >>> ins...

...some > >>> compatibility trouble) may not be a good idea. > >>> > >>> Python 2.7 was published in 2010 and planned as the last of the 2.x > >>> releases. It will not be maintained past 2020 and there is also a retirement > >>> page https://pythonclock.org/ <https://pythonclock.org/> . > >>> > >>> The second argument would not need to be addressed if the first one did > >>> not lay too much burden on developers. After all, we have to install `cmake, > >>> ninja/GNU Make / libedit(for lldb)` to...

...> >>> compatibility trouble) may not be a good idea. > >>> > >>> Python 2.7 was published in 2010 and planned as the last of the 2.x > >>> releases. It will not be maintained past 2020 and there is also a > retirement > >>> page https://pythonclock.org/ . > >>> > >>> The second argument would not need to be addressed if the first one did > >>> not lay too much burden on developers. After all, we have to install > `cmake, > >>> ninja/GNU Make / libedit(for lldb)` to build LLVM. These packages...

...{ rhv_cafile; rhv_cluster; rhv_direct; rhv_verifypeer } > > +let nbdkit_python_plugin = "python" to change this "python3" [1]. I would dearly love to drop Python 2 support everywhere, but I don't think we can do that realisticly before the Python 2 EOL (https://pythonclock.org/) which is another 12 months away. I wonder if there's a better way we can solve this? I don't have any immediate ideas ... Rich. [1] By the way, the failure is weird, non-obvious and non-actionable, so here it is: nbdkit python '/home/rjones/d/libguestfs-master/tmp/v2v.xSFDLk...

...t;>> compatibility trouble) may not be a good idea. >>>>> >>>>> Python 2.7 was published in 2010 and planned as the last of the 2.x >>>>> releases. It will not be maintained past 2020 and there is also a retirement >>>>> page https://pythonclock.org/ . >>>>> >>>>> The second argument would not need to be addressed if the first one did >>>>> not lay too much burden on developers. After all, we have to install `cmake, >>>>> ninja/GNU Make / libedit(for lldb)` to build LLVM. These pa...

Starting with nbdkit 1.16, Python >= 3.3 will be required. Python 2 reaches end of life on 2020-01-01: https://python3statement.org/ https://pythonclock.org/ Debian oldoldstable and RHEL 7 have Python 3.4 and 3.6 respectively, so it seems pointless to try to support Python < 3.3 which lacked support for PyUnicode_AsUTF8. --- README | 13 +++++++------ configure.ac | 36 ++++++++++++++---------------------- plugins/p...

...> >>> compatibility trouble) may not be a good idea. > >>> > >>> Python 2.7 was published in 2010 and planned as the last of the 2.x > >>> releases. It will not be maintained past 2020 and there is also a > retirement > >>> page https://pythonclock.org/ . > >>> > >>> The second argument would not need to be addressed if the first one did > >>> not lay too much burden on developers. After all, we have to install > `cmake, > >>> ninja/GNU Make / libedit(for lldb)` to build LLVM. These packages...

Do not assume that the Python plugin of nbdkit has the same name of the Python interpreter. Use the default upstream name of nbdkit to identify it; downstream distributions must adjust this variable, in case they rename the Python plugin of nbdkit. --- v2v/output_rhv_upload.ml | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/v2v/output_rhv_upload.ml