Sorry for top post, I am just on my phone. Just my two cents - the RoQA is a pretty standard thing when you deal with bigger transitions and there’s a lot of unmaintained packages.
Been there couple of times, and it was nowhere near py2 removal magnitude. So, I just want to send huge thanks towards the Python team and you have my support to make things as easier for you as you can. I think you drafted excellent and considerate plan. O. -- Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org> > On 11 Nov 2019, at 22:15, Ondrej Novy <n...@ondrej.org> wrote: > > > Hi, > > po 11. 11. 2019 v 16:27 odesílatel Norbert Preining <norb...@preining.info> > napsal: >> thanks for your work on the Python2 removal. > > It's team work, I "only" sent that email :). It looks like others already > replied, but > >> Could you please give a time line of how you are planning to proceed? > > time line=now. 1.5 year is really short period for doing so much work in > Debian. Imho we are already too late to make it, but let's try it. :) > >> I think requesting the removal of packages that you are **not** >> maintaining is - to be polite - a bit unconventional (at least). >> This remains at the discretion of the maintainer as far as I remember. > > as other sad, RoQA. But maintainer can always stop this. Py2keep tag, fix > package, even anyone else can NMU it. Removing is last and least preferred > option. This is happening mostly for unmaintained/dead upstream packages, low > popcons, MIA maintainers, QA packages, etc. > >> > All dependency fields in debian/control and debian/tests/control must >> > also be updated to stop using the unversioned python >> >> Are all you "must" statements "policy decisions"? Or your personal wish >> list items? > > Python policy update is underway. > > Thank you. > > -- > Best regards > Ondřej Nový >
