[Biopython-dev] Updating Biopython requirements wording to recommend Python 3

[Iddo Friedberg]

So, I admit I've been a bit out of touch. but:

1. Is biopython P2 no longer being developed?
2. Does biopython P3 have the needed optional dependencies now?


I understand there is still a debate in the Python community as to the use
of P3 fork, over maintenance and continuing use of P2. One argument is that
3rd party library support which is stronger on the P2 fork especially in a
field like ours, which has a lot of "boutique" software.

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Peter Cock <p.j.a.cock at googlemail.com>
wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> Currently our README file says:
>
> We currently recommend using Python 2.7 from http://www.python.org which
> is the final version of Python 2.  Early adopters are encouraged to try
> Biopython under Python 3.3, 3.4, or 3.5 but not all the optional
> dependencies
> are available yet.
>
> Would anyone object to a more forward looking phrasing, e.g.
>
> We currently recommend using Python 3.5 from http://www.python.org and
> avoiding
> legacy Python 2.6 or 2.7 unless your choice is restricted due to having to
> work
> with old code.
>
> Peter
> _______________________________________________
> Biopython-dev mailing list
> Biopython-dev at mailman.open-bio.org
> http://mailman.open-bio.org/mailman/listinfo/biopython-dev
>



-- 
Iddo Friedberg
http://iddo-friedberg.net/contact.html
++++++++++[>+++>++++++>++++++++>++++++++++>+++++++++++<<<<<-]>>>>++++.>
++++++..----.<<<<++++++++++++++++++++++++++++.-----------..>>>+.-----.
.>-.<<<<--.>>>++.>+++.<+++.----.-.<++++++++++++++++++.>+.>.<++.<<<+.>>
>>----.<--.>++++++.<<<<------------------------------------.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.open-bio.org/pipermail/biopython-dev/attachments/20151001/775bcfda/attachment.html>