Initial tauthon

[dan-stromberg]

Rudimentary Tauthon support, for folks who can't quit Python 2.x yet.

Also a news item.

[pradyunsg]

Oh. Okay.

I'm assuming that you've read https://pip.pypa.io/en/stable/development/release-process/#python-2-support.

I, personally, have 0 interest in working on or maintaining software that uses Python 2, or some variant of it.

I'm -0.5 on supporting Tauthon in pip, (new platform, I don't know what the adoption is, I don't know what compatibility/maintainance promises that platform makes) but if we go this route, I want us to explicitly document that this support isn't maintained by pip maintainers, and we also have the ability to drop support if it becomes painful to maintain.

/cc @brainwane to bring to her attention that this exists.

[pradyunsg]

Related to #6929

[pfmoore]

Agreed.

As Tauthon is an incompatible fork of Python (it's Python 2 with extra Python 3 bits added) I'd be very concerned about offering any form of support.

Furthermore, this specific PR is adding Tauthon as an independent Python implementation to the Wheel compatibility tags. The Python tag values are specified in https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0425/#python-tag, so any change to include a special tag for Tauthon would need a PEP change (and hence would need discussion, review and agreement on the packaging discussion lists).

[chrahunt]

@pfmoore, the PEP mentions that other Python implementations should use sys.implementation.name - does this mean they should set that value to what they would like packaging tools to use for their implementation (and that we should be using it) or am I misinterpreting?

[pradyunsg]

@chrahunt Nice catch -- filed pypa/packaging#193. We should fix this there.

[pradyunsg]

For clarifying to @dan-stromberg, the text that @chrahunt pointed out means that the corresponding PEP says that pip should support Python that have a sys.implementation.name, the same way it supports CPython. pip doesn't currently and is not in compliance with the PEP -- we can fix it here but it's likely better to fix it in packaging since we're gonna drop this module at some point, since there's a better, more robust re-write of it now -- #6908.

[pfmoore]

Agreed the fix should be to special case CPython as 'cp' and make everything else sys.implementation.name. But this would be a behaviour change for existing implementations that expect to get cpXY as their Python tag, so we should make sure to advertise this change in advance.

There's also no guidance at all in the PEP about how ABI tags are calculated :-(

[chrahunt]

Hi @dan-stromberg, it looks like we'll take the more generic approach in pypa/packaging#193 so I will close this. Please don't hesitate to work on that issue or help progress #6908!