Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Hello!
>
> Amin Bandali <bandali@gnu.org> skribis:
>
>> On 2018-12-17  9:29 AM, Efraim Flashner wrote:
>>> On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 04:18:16PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> > +(define-public python2-z3
>>>> > +  (package (inherit python-z3)
>>>> 
>>>> This definition cannot be in python.scm; it must be in the same file as
>>>> ‘z3’ or we can get “unbound variable” errors while loading either of
>>>> these two modules.
>>
>> Oh I see.  If we choose to keep it (add it), I’ll move it to maths.scm.
>>
>>>> Also, as we’re approaching end-of-life upstream for Python 2.x, we now
>>>> avoid creating “python2-” packages, unless we cannot avoid it for some
>>>> reason.  Do you think we could do without this “python2-z3” package?
>>>> 
>>>
>>> Currently our z3 package builds python2 bindings
>>
>> What Efraim said.  Since the current z3 provides python2 bindings, I
>> thought I would preserve that option by adding a python2-z3 in case
>> anyone wants to continue to use the python2 bindings.
>>
>> I’m Cc’ing Marius who’s one of the recent committers to the z3 package
>> definition.  Marius, any thoughts on whether we should keep the python2
>> bindings around or do away with them?
>
> Marius, WDYT?

Hello!

I don't actually know z3 at all, I just updated it to fix the build on
core-updates :-)

In any case dropping python2 bindings seems sensible, seeing as Python 2
is EOL in a year[1].  So please go ahead, thank you Amin!

[1]: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0373/