Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

bpo-43669: Drop the internal _sha3 module per PEP 644 #28768

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

illia-v
Copy link
Contributor

@illia-v illia-v commented Oct 6, 2021

Copy link
Member

@tiran tiran left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This changeset needs a new, dedicated BPO and a thorough discussion.

@bedevere-bot
Copy link

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

@tiran
Copy link
Member

tiran commented Oct 6, 2021

I haven't removed the _sha3 and _blake2 modules yet on purpose. I recommend that we wait two releases and drop them in 3.12.

@illia-v
Copy link
Contributor Author

illia-v commented Oct 6, 2021

I haven't removed the _sha3 and _blake2 modules yet on purpose. I recommend that we wait two releases and drop them in 3.12.

It may be prudent enough, but it's worth documenting this somewhere :)
Based on #24601 (comment) I thought that you didn't have any arguments against dropping _sha3 in 3.10.

@tiran
Copy link
Member

tiran commented Oct 6, 2021

I would like to remove a lot of stuff from the stdlib. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to remove it. :)

PEP 644 is deliberately vague and says

Python could drop the builtin implementation.

Please notice that is says could, not will, shell, or should. There are backwards compatibility implications with the removal of the builtin code.

@illia-v
Copy link
Contributor Author

illia-v commented Oct 6, 2021

I would like to remove a lot of stuff from the stdlib. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to remove it. :)

😄

PEP 644 is deliberately vague and says

Python could drop the builtin implementation.

Please notice that is says could, not will, shell, or should. There are backwards compatibility implications with the removal of the builtin code.

It does say "Python's internal copy of the Keccak Code Package and the internal _sha3 module will be removed."

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Nov 6, 2021

This PR is stale because it has been open for 30 days with no activity.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale Stale PR or inactive for long period of time. label Nov 6, 2021
@tiran
Copy link
Member

tiran commented Mar 26, 2022

Greg and I came to the conclusion that the hashlib module must provide sha3 even when Python is built without OpenSSL. In bpo-47098 GH-32060 I replaced the large KCP with a tiny implementation.

@tiran tiran closed this Mar 26, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
awaiting changes stale Stale PR or inactive for long period of time.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants