On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 04:57:17PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:37:27AM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Upstream is active and prides to keep python 2.5 compatibility code in
> > it ... (Not just 2.7).  I (Osamu Aoki <os...@debian.org>) and dkg even
> > made some effort to support both 2 and 3 but the idea was rejected by
> > upstream in 2018.  (Then we both lost motivation since upstream will not
> > include such code in near future)
> >   https://marc.info/?l=getmail&m=151542515929707&w=2
> >
> > The upstream is somehow convinced that python2 will be there for some
> > time (Year ~2020 and later).
> >   https://marc.info/?l=getmail&m=151542154628352&w=2
> uh. meh.
> I haven't looked at the code, but if you made the effort, how improbable
> would it be for you to just keep the patches for py3 support yourself in
> the packaging for the time being?

Neither of us got to compete patches to be accepted by the upstream or
fully functioning code for all versions upstream wanted to support, if I
recall correctly.

Besides, patches applied were extensive.  Considering security
implication, not accepted by upstream was the killer.  The upstream
updates this package when security concerns are raised.

Anyway, if Debian compiles a transition statistics of python3 migration,
we can point upstream to it.

Do we have stat of number of packages:
 A) Packages using python3
 B) Packages using python2 but python3 version is also available.
 C) Packages using python2 but python3 version is not available and
    it is required by standard package building
 D) Packages using python2 but python3 version is not available and
    it is not required by standard package building,
    but it has high popcon over 1000.

If "C" portion is getting less than 1% and "D" portion is getting 1% of
"A" portion, I guess upstream may change mind.

If we know how Fedora has done, that may help convince upstream.



Reply via email to