On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 09:20:31PM -0500, Sandro Tosi wrote: > On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 6:51 AM Adrian Bunk <b...@debian.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 04:06:28PM -0500, Sandro Tosi wrote: > > >... > > > python-txsocksx -> foolscap -> tahoe-lafs > > > > > > both foolscap and tahoe-lafs were removed from testing, so to my > > > script python-txsocksx appears as a leaf package (as its removal wont > > > break already broken/RC packages not in testing). not sure what we > > > want to do here, none of the 2 other packages will get fix anytime > > > soon and may get removed from debian entirely at some point. > > >... > > > > The latter statement is not true. > > > > Both tahoe-lafs and foolscap have substantial upstream activities > > towards Python 3 porting, > > my statement says "none of the 2 other packages will get fix anytime > soon and may get removed from debian entirely at some point" -- what > do you find un-true about it? > > i did not say those projects python3 port is not being worked on, but > i say that they are not close to finishing it, which includes both > porting the code *and* testing it and finally release a version that > has the python3 port.
To me it looks likely to be finished in time for the bullseye freeze. > for tahoe-lafs the effort is tracked at > https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/milestone/Support%20Python%203 > which is currently marked at 89% completed; it was marked to be > completed by Dec 1, 2019, so they are 2 months behind their own > schedule (again, no blaming, just stating facts) >... You are pushing strongly for the removal of a package where upstream is working hard on Python 3 porting which is already 89% completed. (no blaming, just stating facts) It has happened that a removal bug was filed for a Python2 using package that was executed by the ftp team despite objection from the Debian maintainer. (again, no blaming, just stating facts) For many maintainers the approaching bullseye freeze is the deadline when they get all their packages into shape. Some people have enough spare time to work on Debian continuously, others don't. Many upstream developers also have priorities that can make it a challenge to find the time to do a proper conversion to Python 3, and made it lower priority when the conversion didn't bring any benefits. (again, no blaming, just stating facts) Removal from testing is not really problematic, but removal from Debian is something that should not be done too aggressively. > > the reasonable way forward would be to close > > this RM bug and watch how it all will get resolved in a few months with > > new upstream versions. > > We've been known the end of python2 support would be in 2020 since > years, i'm not sure it's fair for the projects that took the time > earlier and to the debian maintainers to ask to keep supporting > python2 packages for (relatively) old software for additional *few months*. >... What always strikes me as weird is the py2keep option, why are you offering that some packages can use Python 2.7 for an additional *Debian release*? Much of the python2 removal only makes sense when the point is to not have to ship and security support Python 2.7 in Debian 11. There are plenty of older unsupported interpreters and libraries for various languages in Debian, if Debian 11 ends up shipping Phyton 2.7 then most python2 users are not a problem and using python2 is better for our users than some of the blind 2to3 conversions to Python3 that have been done resulting in broken packages. > Regards, cu Adrian
