Thanks Mattia and Sean. On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 6:16 PM Mattia Rizzolo <mat...@debian.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 11:06:07AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > > On Sun 17 Jan 2021 at 12:12AM GMT, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 6:39 PM Moritz Muehlenhoff <j...@debian.org> > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> Package: ftp.debian.org > > >> Severity: normal > > >> X-Debbugs-Cc: sudipm.mukher...@gmail.com, ilias...@debian.org > > >> > > >> Please remove offlineimap. It depends on Python and upstream won't port > > >> it > > >> to Python 3. There's however a fork, which has been packaged as > > >> src:offlineimap3 > > >> (and removing this obsolete package allows adding a transitional package > > >> eventually) > > >
<snip> > > > That said, I encourage you to do so *now* rather than in a few months: > that way src:python-imaplib2 can drop its python2 package and > offlineimap3 can migrate to testing, with its transitional package, > therefore giving stable users an upgrade path. > > Or is there any reason offlineimap3 should not be in bullseye? There is no reason to not have offlineimap3 in Bullseye, but I am still undecided about the transitional package and waiting for the upstream confirmation at https://github.com/OfflineIMAP/offlineimap3/issues/10#issuecomment-761891100. But offlineimap3 can only migrate after offlineimap is removed and src:python-imaplib2 drops its python2 package, so I guess its better to go ahead with the RM while I wait for upstream's reply. If it is not removed by then, then I will upload the transitional package like Mattia suggested. -- Regards Sudip
