Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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,

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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: >

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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's

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

[OT] Thanks for your QA work (Was: Please do not drop Python 2 modules)

Hi Adrian, On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 09:09:55PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > I am willing to stop for several weeks/months to monitor RC bugs and > report FTBFS so that is really you who is so terribly fast in spotting and reporting bugs (sometimes even with patches). I recently came to the

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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:

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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 > >

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 weeks/months to monitor RC bugs and report FTBFS if you can make the case that it is more beneficial for

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

Andrej Shadura writes ("Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules"): > On 25 April 2018 at 18:14, Adrian Bunk <b...@debian.org> wrote: > > There are big codebases written in languages like Tcl around, > > so still using Python 2 doesn't strike me as exceptionally wei

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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,

Re: Removing Python 2 support in OpenStack [was: Please do not drop Python 2 modules]

On 04/26/2018 10:40 AM, Ondrej Novy wrote: > problem is that nobody want's to cooperate with you, that's all. All > other arguments are useless. I already explained to you many times what > is problem. Excuse my words, but that's plain bullshit. A year ago, I did nothing for the OpenStack Ocata

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Removing Python 2 support in OpenStack [was: Please do not drop Python 2 modules]

Hi Scott, > Bullseye will be Django 2.0, which is Python 3 only. (Indeed. The only complication is that as we rejected having a seperate source package for Django 2.x can't then upload this version to unstable. It is, however, available in experimental.) Regards, -- ,''`. : :' :

Re: Removing Python 2 support in OpenStack [was: Please do not drop Python 2 modules]

Hi, 2018-04-26 13:27 GMT+02:00 Scott Kitterman : > I know very little about the details of OpenStack, but in case a somewhat > parallel example is useful, that's approximately what Django will do. > Bullseye will be Django 2.0, which is Python 3 only. Buster is the pivot >

Re: Removing Python 2 support in OpenStack [was: Please do not drop Python 2 modules]

On Thursday, April 26, 2018 10:40:49 AM Ondrej Novy wrote: ... > we need Buster stable period for Py2->Py3 migration. We are going to be > ready for Py3-only for Bullseye. Thousands of servers, millions lines of > code. ... I know very little about the details of OpenStack, but in case a somewhat

Re: Removing Python 2 support in OpenStack [was: Please do not drop Python 2 modules]

Hi, 2018-04-26 0:49 GMT+02:00 Thomas Goirand : > > - faster build time (no need to test with Python 2, so less chances > of > > build failure). > > > > build is done once, customer happiness is for years (buster lifetime). > > More work ... > more work for machines

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Removing Python 2 support in OpenStack [was: Please do not drop Python 2 modules]

On 04/25/2018 11:59 AM, Ondrej Novy wrote: > 2018-04-25 11:11 GMT+02:00 Thomas Goirand >: > > - faster build time (no need to test with Python 2, so less chances of > build failure). > > build is done once, customer happiness is for years

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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 - >> >

Re: Removing Python 2 support in OpenStack [was: Please do not drop Python 2 modules]

Hi, 2018-04-25 11:11 GMT+02:00 Thomas Goirand : > > - faster build time (no need to test with Python 2, so less chances of > build failure). > build is done once, customer happiness is for years (buster lifetime). - no chance to have any Python 2 packages installed, so we're

Re: Removing Python 2 support in OpenStack [was: Please do not drop Python 2 modules]

On 04/25/2018 09:39 AM, Ondrej Novy wrote: > 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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

About chances to fix issues in Debian and roles that do not exist (Was: Please do not drop Python 2 modules)

Hi Nicholas, On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 07:54:00PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > > At what stage should Python IDEs uploaded to NEW disable or not > install Python 2 support? Now? > > Should Python 2-specific IDEs and/or Python 2-specific educational > materials be removed from the archive?

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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)

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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-*

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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?

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

❦ 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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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,

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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 clearer >>

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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 extensi

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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". > &

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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:

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". $ lintian-info -t python-foo-but-no-python3-foo W: python-foo-but-no-python3-foo N: N: This source package appears to

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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-

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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 moved or have no

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 moved or have no intention to move to Python 3, N:please be certain that Debian would benefit from the inclusion, N:

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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.

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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.

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

Jeremy Bicha writes ("Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules"): > 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 u

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

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 > also for those without there will in many cases be users who will > still need these

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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,

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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

Please do not drop Python 2 modules

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 Linux distribution is just a platform for running own applications,