On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 8:06 AM Thomas Deutschmann <whi...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Sure, if packages don't work anymore or are blocking something, we will
> start last-rite process. But for the sabnzbd example (I haven't looked
> closely on any other package from that list) there isn't anything
> blocking and it's a working piece of software. The only thing which
> stands out is: It's a Py2-only package.

Well, that's simple enough.  If the python maintainers intend to
remove python2 then they need to remove anything that depends on it at
the same time.  Otherwise all those packages are going to break anyway
and users just end up with a mess of error messages due to a broken

That said, as I've already commented I think it makes more sense to
mask the reverse dependencies at the same time as masking python2

And of course for something this big it wouldn't have hurt to announce
the plans and what was going to get masked so that mistakes could get
caught.  Even though it is just a mask it is still a bit disruptive to
have packages masked/unmasked because of incorrect identification of
reverse/optional deps.

Ultimately though it is up to the python2 maintainers to decide when
they want to remove it.  If others want to step up and replace them as
python2 maintainers and they have a reasonable plan for keeping it
working that would seem like the approach that would make the most
people happy.  We can't force people to maintain python2 if they don't
want to.


Reply via email to