On 6 April 2018 at 01:10, Eric Garver <egar...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 10:53:03PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:06 PM, James Hogarth <james.hoga...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Thu, 5 Apr 2018, 18:28 Matthew Miller, <mat...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 04:03:24PM +0000, James Hogarth wrote: >> >> > > I'm imagining all those dependent packages _also_ moving to that >> >> > > module.... >> >> > Sorry Matthew but I can't see that actually happening at all... >> >> > >> >> > If they are already leaping to drop python2-* way ahead of the proposed >> >> > EOL >> >> > of 2020 when there is no extra effort to include the subpackage in their >> >> > "normal" koiji+bodhi workflow for the main repos... why would they go to >> >> > the extra effort of a special split to do that (no longer simple >> >> > subpackage) into a module? >> >> >> >> Yeah, it would make sense where it's a pure-python python 2 lib, but be >> >> quite a pain for packages where python 2 bindings are subpackages. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Matthew Miller >> >> <mat...@fedoraproject.org> >> >> Fedora Project Leader >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> devel mailing list -- email@example.com >> >> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org >> > >> > >> > Heh just saw this one from a comment on Reddit... >> > >> > https://bugs.launchpad.net/calibre/+bug/1714107 >> > >> > Unless Nirik does a "maintainer patch" porting the entire code over himself >> > I guess no more Calibre in F30 ;) >> > >> >> "I am perfectly capable of maintaining python 2 myself." >> Best laugh I had today. >> >> >> But that's beside the point. >> I just wanted to throw in something that I don't quite understand >> about this thread: >> >> If I understand correctly, the original proposal was about >> - dropping python2 support and sub-packages only in "fedora > 29" or >> "fedora >= 29" (see the original mail in this thread), >> - starting from leaf packages, so no unmet dependencies are introduced >> during the retirement process. >> >> According to this, the python2 bindings for firewalld shouldn't have >> been dropped from f28 at all, because >> - there's still something depending on them (ansible support for >> firewalld, still uses python2 on f28), and > > This dependency is not visible via rpm, because it's on the remote side > not the controller side where Ansible is installed. > i.e. > > $ repoquery --whatrequires python2-firewall > > yields nothing. As such, I missed this indirect dependency. It would be > nice if there was a way to express this. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't this be a nuisance in Ansible for > some time? If the controller side (regardless of distro) defaults to > invoking python2 on the remote then it will fail on f29+. I guess > Ansible has knobs to tell it to use python3 on a set of remotes. > Alternatively you can install python3-ansible. > > My point is, restoring the python2-firewall subpackage for f28 will help > targets that are f28. But in f29, the package will definitely be gone > and we're still "broken" for many controlling distros including older > Fedora releases. > >> - the change was explicitly about f29+ (and not f28, too). > > I had dropped the python2-firewall subpackage before this thread was > started. > >> >> Please correct me if I am wrong. >> >> If I am correct though, it looks like the rawhide change to remove the >> python2 sub-package from firewalld was mistakenly merged from rawhide >> into f28, and should be reverted. > > I'm not an Ansible user so I don't know how painful it is for the > python2-firewall subpackage to be gone. If the majority thinks it should > be restored, then we'll bring it back.
Just align the drop to F29, at the earliest, to align with ansible itself changing ... and let's get a Change listed (or ask the ansible team to note this on their change) so that at least there's documentation ... The only real problem right now is a lack of communication in python2-* drops ... we just need to be a lot clearer there. Note the latest ansible documentation actually states: Requires the python2 bindings of firewalld, which may not be installed by default if the distribution switched to python 3 Also there is a PyPi package for firewall that is completely different from this making things even messier as if firewalld drops the subpackage there is no way for someone to get a py2 firewalld library on the target system in the event their ansible module doesn't work with py3 This is going to be a very messy couple of Fedora releases I fear ... _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- firstname.lastname@example.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org