[Python-modules-team] pygame and python 3

[Vincent Cheng]

Hi Lenard,

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Lenard Lindstrom <len-l at telus.net> wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
>
> On 15-04-29 03:34 AM, Vincent Cheng wrote:
>>
>> Hi Lenard,
>>
>> First off, thanks for all your work on pygame!
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Lenard Lindstrom <len-l at telus.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Pygame supported python3 since before version 1.9.0 in 2009. All Pygame
>>> code
>>> is written to work with either Python 2.x or 3.x. So building Pygame for
>>> python3 is the same as for python2. Just use "python3 setup.py build"
>>> instead of "python setup.py build". Installation is also the same. For
>>> Pygame 1.9.2, which I
>>> test against Python 2.7 and 3.4 on i386 Linux Mint, python3 support is
>>> complete.
>>>
>>> So if a stable Pygame package already exists for python2, adapting it for
>>> python3 should be straight forward. Let me know if some Pygame bug causes
>>> problems and I will deal with it promptly.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the effort in keeping Pygame in Linux.
>>
>> Just to confirm, does the latest stable pygame release (1.9.1)
>> actually support python3? Because back when I initially prepared
>> python3 pygame 1.9.1 packages for Debian a few years back, I recall
>> that I was able to build it, but just importing pygame with a python3
>> interpreter resulted in an error. 1.9.2pre works great though.
>>
>> Is there a rough estimate of when 1.9.2 is expected to be released, by
>> the way, or is it more along the lines of "it'll be done when it's
>> done"? ;)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Vincent
>
> I checked Pygame 1.9.1 with Python 3.4 and see where the problem is. Pygame
> 1.9.1 was built and tested on an earlier Python 3 release. Basically, the
> early effort on Python 3 went towards the language upgrade. The C api was
> slower to follow. So Python 3 is basically a moving target for extension
> module developers. I suppose Pygame 1.9.1 could be updated for Python 3.4,
> but is it worth it?
>
> For practical purposes, Pygame 1.9.2 is in the beta stage of testing. I see
> no new features or rewrites happening before the formal release, just bug
> fixes. Basically the delay in release is one of logistics, getting a new
> automated build site for Windows and OS X. But for Linux, specifically Linux
> Mint 17.1 Cinnamon 32-bit (Ubuntu 14.04.2 LTS, Trusty Tahr), it passes the
> unit tests. Other than some document editing, I think it is as ready as it
> will ever be for a Linux release. As for the date of the formal release,
> that is up to the project administrator, René Dudfield.

Thanks for the explanation! I don't follow upstream development
closely, and I was unsure how close to release 1.9.2 actually is. In
that case, would you consider 1.9.2 as of the last commit on bitbucket
(or any specific commit if you want to suggest one, I suppose) ready
for inclusion in a stable release of Debian/Ubuntu? If so, I'd be
happy to upload 1.9.2 to unstable rather than just experimental.

Regards,
Vincent