Hi,
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > So yes, LTS is fully part of the Debian project, and how Python 2.7 is
> > supported should IMO very much be our concern. Now, we think that we
> > should only support Python 2.7 for more than until Buster is EOL and
> > becomes an LTS, I support thi
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 04:11:48PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Wow, hopefully not ! LTS is an effort by the Debian project. What the
> > external company does is an effort to *FUND* individual to work on it.
> > Currently, only Freexian does this sponsor gathering and redistribution
> > work, bu
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 03:08:24PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 04/26/2018 07:14 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:03:56AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >> On 04/25/2018 06:14 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:10:12AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >>
On Monday, April 30, 2018 06:07:19 AM Chris Lamb wrote:
> Hey Scott,
>
> (Somehow this got wedged in my 'Drafts' folder. Please don't read
> anything into the delay in replying...)
>
> > Fundamentally not a lintian warnings are created equal. Some have
> > solid foundation in Debian project con
Hey Scott,
(Somehow this got wedged in my 'Drafts' folder. Please don't read
anything into the delay in replying...)
> Fundamentally not a lintian warnings are created equal. Some have
> solid foundation in Debian project consensus and policy. Others are
> nothing more than the opinions of t
On 04/26/2018 07:14 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:03:56AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 04/25/2018 06:14 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:10:12AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
...
This cannot go on, and on, and on, and on... We have to send a
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 01:06:03PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules"):
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 06:19:24PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Adrian: are you volunteering to write patches to solve Helmut&#x
Adrian Bunk writes ("Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules"):
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 06:19:24PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Adrian: are you volunteering to write patches to solve Helmut's cross
> > building problem ?
>
> I am willing to stop for several
Adrian,
> We (Debian) have decided to support Python 2.7 in buster, like it or not.
>
> At that point it is not up to individual maintainers to sabotage
> Python 2.7 support in buster by dropping Python 2 packages without
> a valid technical reason.
Most maintainers are likely dropping Python 2
Hi,
2018-04-26 20:04 GMT+02:00 Adrian Bunk :
> Triaging would imply a valid technical reason like problems with the
> Python 2 module, not blind dropping out of a desire to kill Python 2.
>
I completely agree with you Adrian, thanks!
--
Best regards
Ondřej Nový
Email: n...@ondrej.org
PGP: 3D
On Thu, 2018-04-26 at 20:14 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:03:56AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
[...]
> > ...
> > > Maintaining the Python 2 interpreter is actually reasonably trivial.
> >
> > That's not the question I was asking. I was asking if someone is
> > volunteering
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 06:19:24PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
>...
> Adrian: are you volunteering to write patches to solve Helmut's cross
> building problem ?
I am willing to stop for several weeks/months to monitor RC bugs and
report FTBFS if you can make the case that it is more beneficial for
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:35:10AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > We (Debian) have decided to support Python 2.7 in buster, like it or
> > not.
> >
> > At that point it is not up to individual maintainers to sabotage
> > Python 2.7 support in buster by dro
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> We (Debian) have decided to support Python 2.7 in buster, like it or
> not.
>
> At that point it is not up to individual maintainers to sabotage
> Python 2.7 support in buster by dropping Python 2 packages without a
> valid technical reason.
>
> "I want Py
Andrej Shadura writes ("Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules"):
> On 25 April 2018 at 18:14, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > There are big codebases written in languages like Tcl around,
> > so still using Python 2 doesn't strike me as exceptionally weird.
>
>
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:03:56AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 04/25/2018 06:14 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:10:12AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >> ...
> >> This cannot go on, and on, and on, and on... We have to send a clear
> >> message on the right direction, wh
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 09:16:06AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 04/24/2018 07:39 AM, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> > ❦ 23 avril 2018 23:54 +0200, Thomas Goirand :
> >
> >> Isn't 10 years of Python 3 enough time for a migration?
> >
> > Python 3.3, the first release people could reasonably start
On 04/25/2018 01:30 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
> The simple, obvious means of installing Python in Debian - either
> manually, or as a dependency of another package - is via the package
> named 'python'. At present, in current testing, doing this will pull in
> python2.7 and will not (as far as I can
On 04/25/2018 06:14 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:10:12AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> ...
>> This cannot go on, and on, and on, and on... We have to send a clear
>> message on the right direction, which is Python 2 removal. Yes, removal!
>> Why are we even discussing this?
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:54:51PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>...
> Right now, the only reason I'm keeping Python 2 support within a number
> of packages in OpenStack, is because one of our team member wrote he's
> using Python 2 in his company, and that we never finished the
> conversation as t
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:10:12AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>...
> This cannot go on, and on, and on, and on... We have to send a clear
> message on the right direction, which is Python 2 removal. Yes, removal!
> Why are we even discussing this? Isn't it obvious?
It is not for us to decide wha
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 05:49:32PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 08:57:55PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > The tip of the iceberg are some recent cases where Python 2 modules
> > were dropped that still had reverse dependencies in unstable, but
> > also for those without ther
On April 25, 2018 11:30:15 AM UTC, The Wanderer wrote:
>On 2018-04-25 at 06:46, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>> On April 25, 2018 5:51:54 AM UTC, Andrea Bolognani
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:17:08PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>
Given that "software collections" provides a co
On Mi, Apr 25, 2018 at 07:30:15 -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
The simple, obvious means of installing Python in Debian - either
manually, or as a dependency of another package - is via the package
named 'python'. At present, in current testing, doing this will pull in
I don’t think you can see it
On 2018-04-25 at 06:46, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On April 25, 2018 5:51:54 AM UTC, Andrea Bolognani
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:17:08PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>>> Given that "software collections" provides a containerized Python
>>> 3 build and basically none of the rest of t
On April 25, 2018 5:51:54 AM UTC, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:17:08PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>> On 2018-04-25 01:05:59 +0200 (+0200), Andrea Bolognani wrote:
>> [...]
>> > So you could say that RHEL is taking the approach described above -
>> > having a transitional
Hi,
2018-04-25 9:06 GMT+02:00 Thomas Goirand :
>
> I would like to start dropping Python 2 as early as possible though. The
> only question that remains is: how many people still have Python 2 only
> code using clients.
>
/me
And because:
1. OS clients are already packaged for Py2 now
2.
On 04/24/2018 07:39 AM, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 23 avril 2018 23:54 +0200, Thomas Goirand :
>
>> Isn't 10 years of Python 3 enough time for a migration?
>
> Python 3.3, the first release people could reasonably start migrating
> to, is from 2012. Before that, it was very difficult to have a c
On 04/25/2018 06:25 AM, olivier sallou wrote:
> Regarding education, using python 2 or 3
> should be transparent.
At this point, new comers should learn Python 3 only.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
On 04/24/2018 05:11 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> The reason it was brought up
> earlier in this thread is because Thomas has recently dropped Python
> 2.7 builds for it and switched to only building Python 3.x packages.
I have *not* removed Python 2 support. Only services are switched to
Python 3 b
On 04/24/2018 07:45 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> if that's possible, fine. otoh, I would be fine to have a very reduced set of
> python2 apps in buster+1, if that's needed. Sure we can remove mercurial and
> OpenStack if they are not ready for Python3
OpenStack in Sid/Buster is already fully swit
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:17:08PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2018-04-25 01:05:59 +0200 (+0200), Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> [...]
> > So you could say that RHEL is taking the approach described above -
> > having a transitional period where both versions are available side
> > by side - with
Le mer. 25 avr. 2018 01:54, Nicholas D Steeves a
écrit :
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:29:54AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > On 04/21/2018 11:19 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > Since we are supporting Python2 in the next release, there is no
> value> in dumping python-* packages now. Unlike ma
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:29:54AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 04/21/2018 11:19 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > Since we are supporting Python2 in the next release, there is no value> in
> > dumping python-* packages now. Unlike many areas of the archive,
> > Python packages are actively used
On 2018-04-25 01:05:59 +0200 (+0200), Andrea Bolognani wrote:
[...]
> So you could say that RHEL is taking the approach described above -
> having a transitional period where both versions are available side
> by side - with the only difference being that Python 3 is currently
> not delivered throu
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 10:42:15PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2018-04-24 22:39:48 +0200 (+0200), Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> > To give a concrete example, Fedora switched to using Python 3
> > as the default several releases ago[1]; despite that, Python 2
> > is still available in the archive,
On 2018-04-24 22:39:48 +0200 (+0200), Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:29:54AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > Looking at other distros is interesting. If I understand well, they will
> > never have Python 2 and 3 interpreters in the distro, and will
> > completely switch from
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:29:54AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Looking at other distros is interesting. If I understand well, they will
> never have Python 2 and 3 interpreters in the distro, and will
> completely switch from 2 to 3 at once.
Unless I'm misunderstanding, I don't think you're cor
On 2018-04-24 07:45:16 +0200 (+0200), Matthias Klose wrote:
[...]
> Sure we can remove mercurial and OpenStack if they are not ready
> for Python3, but I'd like to avoid that. It doesn't mean that we
> should any old, upstream unmaintained Python2 dependent package.
To be clear, OpenStack has been
On 23/04/18 23:54, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Also, I have noticed that when removing Python 2 legacy packages, a lot
> of cruft remains in the archive. This isn't trivial to track and clean.
> I'd love to have the opinion of the FTP master team about this. How can
> we file sensible bugs about it? Ho
On 24.04.2018 07:37, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Thomas Goirand:
>> [...]
>>> I'm generally in favor of getting rid of old stuff, but python2 isn't
>>> there yet.
>>
>> Right. But I do believe we need to be very careful to not send a wrong
>> message to our users. Debian deprecating Python 2 is good. A
❦ 23 avril 2018 23:54 +0200, Thomas Goirand :
> Isn't 10 years of Python 3 enough time for a migration?
Python 3.3, the first release people could reasonably start migrating
to, is from 2012. Before that, it was very difficult to have a codebase
compatible with Python 2 and Python 3. Debian Whe
Thomas Goirand:
> [...]
>> I'm generally in favor of getting rid of old stuff, but python2 isn't
>> there yet.
>
> Right. But I do believe we need to be very careful to not send a wrong
> message to our users. Debian deprecating Python 2 is good. A strong,
> bold deprecation message is needed, eve
On 04/21/2018 11:19 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Since we are supporting Python2 in the next release, there is no value> in
> dumping python-* packages now. Unlike many areas of the archive,
> Python packages are actively used by third-party code that isn't and
> won't be in Debian.
There's alway
On 04/23/2018 01:41 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Chris Lamb writes ("Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules"):
>> Hi Julien,
>>> I found strange to put an override for this so I didn't.
>>
>> I'm afraid I'm struggling to see Lintian could be any
On 04/21/2018 07:57 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Hi,
>
> first two facts:
>
> 1. Upstream EOL for Python 2 is 2020
>
> 2. Debian will fully (security) support Python 2 in buster
>until the EOL of buster (ETA: mid-2022)
>
>
> Python 2 is obsolete, no doubt about that.
>
> But in many cases a L
Dear -devel,
> N:Please do not override this warning; rather, add a justification to your
> N:changelog entry; Lintian looks in this version's changelog entry for the
> N:specified package name or the phrase "Python 2 version" or similar.
> I'm also struggling with how to rephrase thi
Helmut Grohne writes ("Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules"):
> I actually face the issue you are trying to exclude here. You likely
> know that I work on making packages cross-buildable and I do not stop at
> python extensions. As it happens, cross building extensions
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 08:57:55PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The tip of the iceberg are some recent cases where Python 2 modules
> were dropped that still had reverse dependencies in unstable, but
> also for those without there will in many cases be users who will
> still need these modules in bu
Stuart Prescott writes ("Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules"):
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Can lintian tell whether there is a Python 3 module too ? If so then
> > I think a better criterion for warning would be "there is no Python 3
> > module".
>
&
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:41:36PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > N:If upstream have not moved or have no intention to move to Python 3,
> > N:please be certain that Debian would benefit from the inclusion,
> > N:continued maintenance burden and (eventual) removal of this package
> > N:
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Can lintian tell whether there is a Python 3 module too ? If so then
> I think a better criterion for warning would be "there is no Python 3
> module".
$ lintian-info -t python-foo-but-no-python3-foo
W: python-foo-but-no-python3-foo
N:
N: This source package appears to gene
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 03:46:36AM +, Luke W Faraone wrote:
> > you make it sound like the lintian maintainers are a bunch of lunatics,
> > but according to src:piuparts/debian/copyright, that's us, the piuparts
> > maintainers. the lintian maintainers (and uploaders) are a bunch of
> > (ex- an
Chris Lamb writes ("Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules"):
> Hi Julien,
> > I found strange to put an override for this so I didn't.
>
> I'm afraid I'm struggling to see Lintian could be any clearer
> here:
>
> N:If upstream have not mo
Hi Julien,
> I found strange to put an override for this so I didn't.
I'm afraid I'm struggling to see Lintian could be any clearer
here:
N:If upstream have not moved or have no intention to move to Python 3,
N:please be certain that Debian would benefit from the inclusion,
N:contin
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 01:52:22AM +0200, Julien Muchembled wrote:
> A lintian warning is even a reason for REJECT. "I" (my mentor) uploaded
> a new source package "zodbpickle" 5 weeks ago and I wonder if it's stuck
> because of this. I found strange to put an override for this so I
> didn't.
"Stuc
On April 23, 2018 3:11:10 AM UTC, Holger Levsen wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 01:52:19AM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Fundamentally not a lintian warnings are created equal. Some have
>solid
>> foundation in Debian project consensus and policy. Others are
>nothing
>> more than the opini
Hi Holger,
On 23/04/18 03:11, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 01:52:19AM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Fundamentally not a lintian warnings are created equal. Some have solid
>> foundation in Debian project consensus and policy. Others are nothing
>> more than the opinions of
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 01:52:19AM +, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Fundamentally not a lintian warnings are created equal. Some have solid
> foundation in Debian project consensus and policy. Others are nothing
> more than the opinions of the lintian maintainers. This is one of the latter.
you
On April 23, 2018 12:52:09 AM UTC, Luke W Faraone wrote:
>On 22/04/18 23:52, Julien Muchembled wrote:
>> A lintian warning is even a reason for REJECT.
>
>Technically yes, Lintian warnings and errors are a thing that ftpteam
>looks at when processing new packages.
>
>But if all Lintian warnings
On 22/04/18 23:52, Julien Muchembled wrote:
> A lintian warning is even a reason for REJECT.
Technically yes, Lintian warnings and errors are a thing that ftpteam
looks at when processing new packages.
But if all Lintian warnings without an override were cause for reject,
we'd just configure dak
Le 04/21/18 à 20:04, Chris Lamb a écrit :
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
>> The tip of the iceberg are some recent cases where Python 2 modules
>> were dropped that still had reverse dependencies in unstable
>
> I suspect developers may be reading too much into Lintian output,
> reading them as "Please r
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 9:19 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On April 21, 2018 9:05:27 PM UTC, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
>>You and I seem to be clashing a bit often on the issue of when it is
>>appropriate to remove obsolete packages from Debian. It seems like
>>some of your resistance is a bit theoretica
Jeremy Bicha writes ("Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules"):
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > The tip of the iceberg are some recent cases where Python 2 modules
> > were dropped that still had reverse dependencies in unstable, but
> &g
On April 21, 2018 9:05:27 PM UTC, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> The tip of the iceberg are some recent cases where Python 2 modules
>> were dropped that still had reverse dependencies in unstable, but
>> also for those without there will in many cas
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The tip of the iceberg are some recent cases where Python 2 modules
> were dropped that still had reverse dependencies in unstable, but
> also for those without there will in many cases be users who will
> still need these modules in buster.
O
On 2018-04-21 20:57:55 +0300 (+0300), Adrian Bunk wrote:
[...]
> There are of course cases (e.g. OpenStack) where providing Python 2
> modules in buster is not possible with reasonable effort.
Consider me mildly curious as to why that is. The OpenStack
community rigorously tests all its current pr
Le sam. 21 avr. 2018 20:04, Chris Lamb a écrit :
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > The tip of the iceberg are some recent cases where Python 2 modules
> > were dropped that still had reverse dependencies in unstable
>
> I suspect developers may be reading too much into Lintian output,
> reading them as
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The tip of the iceberg are some recent cases where Python 2 modules
> were dropped that still had reverse dependencies in unstable
I suspect developers may be reading too much into Lintian output,
reading them as "Please remove your Python 2.x module".
The motivating behind
69 matches
Mail list logo
