[pycrypto] Once again: Python3 with PyCrypto

Dwayne C. Litzenberger dlitz at dlitz.net
Thu Dec 23 17:36:30 CST 2010

One thing I want to be clear about is that Python 2.x compatibility should go back as far as 2.1, or 2.2 at the latest.  It's not acceptable to tell people running 2.2 to "just upgrade to 2.6".

"Thorsten Behrens" <sbehrens at gmx.li> wrote:

>Johannes, Dwayne,
>now that pycrypto accepts US contributions, I'm happy to at least give
>Python 3.x support some thought and investigation. So as to not
>re-invent the wheel: Johannes, what's the status of your efforts to
>I don't really know what's  involved in doing Py3k support, but I'd
>like to see it happen, provided
>that it doesn't involve breaking Python 2.x support or a lot of
>unnecessary code duplication.
>Agreed. It's a matter of staying away from 3.x-only features (a pretty
>good list can be found here:
>and I'd say even features that have been backported into 2.6 and 2.7.
>That is, focus on rewriting things that will break 3.x in such a way
>that they stay supported in 2.x. I'll caution that I haven't been
>through that exercise. I imagine it should be non-trivial but also not
>a huge pain for pycrypto, but I'm not willing to wager on that hunch.
>The biggest hurdle has already been overcome: You'd like to see it
>happen. That's not a given in the Python community right now, I am made
>to understand. :)
>How do other Python projects that have C code maintain  compatibility
>across both Python 2.x and 3.x?
>There are some guidelines at
>Looks like the int/long unification can be handled pretty well, by
>using aliases. str/unicode may be an issue, since 2.6 has a
>compatibility header, but earlier versions don't. Depends on how much
>those functions are in use in the pycrypto C modules. And then there's
>module unit/status, which looks like a pain, though do-able.
>pycrypto mailing list
>pycrypto at lists.dlitz.net

Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

More information about the pycrypto mailing list