On 02/08/2024 18:55, Alexandre Detiste wrote: > Le ven. 2 août 2024 à 12:25, Blair Noctis <n...@sail.ng> a écrit : >>> Debian could also benefit from this zombie-telnetlib. >> >> How? >> >> On the other hand, it would allow packages to continue relying on a thing >> expunged from upstream, a maintenance burden for both Debian and upstream. > > If we for example need to patch 10 dead-upstream projects to re-add > telnetlib.py > & the corresponding stanza in d/copyright it might be less work > to scale it out in an external source package. > > All of this depends on how many packages will need this telnetlib. > > codesearch gives pages and pages of stuff with a lot of false positives > > https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=telnetlib&literal=1&perpkg=1&page=5
Searching in regex mode with `import.*telnetlib path:*.py` should give more accurate results. But nevertheless: Yeah, if they have not migrated. This PEP was first proposed in 2019, amended in 2022, and 3.13 is slanted to be released in October, 2024. Package authors should have had plenty of time to have this information propagated to them and migrate. Even today, 2 Aug 2024, is 2 months from the effective date. Please file bugreports/issues to ask the packages you care about to migrate. > If we for example need to patch 10 dead-upstream projects which means the maintainer is now responsible for keeping it up to date. Including following Python upgrades and PEPs. But not by > to scale it out in an external source package which is effectively going against Python upstream, allowing the thing to live on, and people to say "it's still alive in Debian!" Also, even python3.11 is still there. Sure someone needing something expunged from 3.13 would be fine staying with 3.12? -- Sdrager, Blair Noctis
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
