Discussion: Support statement or policy for python

[inoa-jboliveira]

Hi, I wish there was a "discussion" tab here on uv's Github. I don't think this fits as an "issue".

Initially uv would not work with Python 3.7 (EOL June 2023), but now it not only works but is installable. Python 3.8 ended life support 2 days ago. Is there assurance that new versions of uv will still be able to both install and run these interpreters? I also saw accidental removal of downloadable versions of Python here, so:

I am interested in knowing what is the policy for Astral supporting installation and usage of Python interpreters past their EOL. If you can produce a statement on the docs page for this.

One of the advantages of having a rust app that bootstraps python without depending on it (most of the time) is to be able to run old versions of user applications that still rely on outdated python. I know there could be slight issues with changes on virtual environments over the years, different env variables, and other small things that may or may not be slightly different, but as long as you define a cutting point, you would be able to still support running a version for many years past its EOL.

"But isn't that a security issue?" -- you may ask

I do not support that a python version should be used on a production environment past its expiration date. But I support being able to revive old software in a modern OS with modern tools. It happens all the time, e.g.:

1. Get old OS/toolchain/interpreter that is still capable of running old version of software.
2. Update the software for the maximum version supported by OS/toolchain/interpreter.
3. If you still cannot run it on modern OS/toolchain/interpreter, upgrade to next version and go back to item 1
4. Finally on modern OS/toolchain/interpreter, update the code to work with latest versions of things.

Sometimes you still have dependencies that are not fit for the full upgrade and you may need to keep things in a mixed state for longer than you want, to test things in the older version vs the new version in parallel to guarantee behavior has not changed and so on.

If newer uv version guarantees that I will be able to still install and run Python 3.8 in e.g. 2030, I know that I can revive any software written since 2020 (that is not a great amount of time!) in a modern system.

I see all the time libraries dropping support of a Python version not because they need a feature, but because they were told that version is "too old". Nowadays we see a change in direction, with Linux getting Super-long-term support (SLTS) versions of 12-13 years and GCC undeprecating platforms so people can rely on them for much longer and guarantee software can still be mended, upgraded, ported etc.

I don't ask for Astral to support Python past its EOL, but to keep it working, even if with big warnings and small hurdles that allow people to keep doing their job and using the one tool to rule the python ecosystem.

[charliermarsh]

(It's okay to use issues for discussions here, don't worry about it.)

[paveldikov]

This is actually a pretty solid and relatable use case IMO. Although I can equally see how adopting aspects of the LTS/SLTS support model may add complexity and impede the project's otherwise impeccable velocity.

Currently the adoption path for uv for legacy projects involves upgrading Python first, and only then adopting uv. I do think this is sub-optimal because uv actually makes the experience of bumping Python versions considerably easier, in large part thanks to uv.lock. By keeping a lockfile, your project's dependency resolution should be backwards/forwards compatible within the extent of your project's requires-python. So in the happy case, upgrading to non-EOL Python should be as simple as 'use a newer interpreter and rebuild your venv'.

Also worth noting that, AIUI, the vast majority of uv functionality is decoupled from the 'actual' Python interpreter binary (apart from breaking changes in a few key APIs such as pyvenv.cfg, the site-packages layout and a number of sys. structs, IIRC). So, in lieu of breaking API changes, it should be possible to sustain 3.7/3.8 compatibility near-indefinitely.

[zanieb]

I'm happy to formalize our plans for support.

I'll use this issue to talk through some thoughts before writing up a document.

A notable problem that comes up for long-term support is that building Python distributions is expensive — python-build-standalone has a huge matrix that takes many hours to run already. We need to drop support for old Python versions there to keep things at a manageable level. Supporting old distributions from python-build-standalone is not trivial in uv because we make improvements to the distributions themselves and those changes are not propagated to old distributions so we end up needing to support multiple distribution formats here.

[inoa-jboliveira]

Hi @zanieb Is it necessary to rebuild versions over and over with each release of python-build-standalone?

There are many optimizations that can be done to the build process, such as releasing each python mainline individually to name one. Considering is that Github Actions is free for open source projects, the multiple releases could even happen in parallel without much hassle.

Regarding building older versions, it could be done in a best efforts basis, which older versions (e.g. 3.7) not being rebuilt past their EOL unless there is an issue with newer OS that can be overcome by a new sporadic build (once every year, lets say).

uv would try to download, install and run older the latest build of each mainline. I think it already does that somehow since there is no new build of 3.7.

[zanieb]

Is it necessary to rebuild versions over and over with each release of python-build-standalone?

Yeah, since we make other changes to the distributions. For example, we update the standalone dependencies (like OpenSSL) for security patches.

...by a new sporadic build...

This isn't really feasible, because then we need to maintain all the code to support the old versions still and if we're not testing them we'll certainly break something without knowing.

uv would try to download, install and run older the latest build of each mainline.

Yes we do this, but this creates additional maintenance overhead for uv. It's not trivial to support multiple versions of distributions indefinitely.