On April 21, 2018 9:05:27 PM UTC, Jeremy Bicha <jbi...@debian.org> wrote: >On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Adrian Bunk <b...@debian.org> 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. > >Once a Python2 library has no reverse depends, I see no reason in >general why the Maintainer can't remove the Python2 library. Further, >I think we ought to encourage Maintainers to remove the Python2 >libraries. > >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 theoretical. It sounds to me like >you're saying don't remove any Python2 libraries because somebody >somewhere might find it inconvenient to need to port some third-party >app to Python3 before 2022. But I think if we had that philosophy, we >wouldn't ever remove anything until identified security concerns force >it out.
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. I've personally invested time and political capital in external projects I've worked on to get people to use Debian packages as a stable base and not just download semi-random code from wherever. Please don't make this harder. I'm generally in favor of getting rid of old stuff, but python2 isn't there yet. It's much newer and better maintained than things like Qt4 that are getting to the better part of a decade without upstream support. Please wait until after Buster and then feel free to resume the charge. Scott K
