On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 8:52 AM Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > 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 > depgraph. > > 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 > itself.
It's not quite so simple as you make it sound. There really isn't a viable way to defer removal of python2-only packages until we remove dev-lang/python:2.7. An increasing number of python packages are dropping support for python2 when upstream releases new versions. When this happens, we really need to drop python2 support from all reverse dependencies as well. Alternative strategies like slotting or compatibility packages are a stopgap at best, and become a problem as soon as bugs are reported or security issues pop up. Ripping out python2 support for all reverse dependencies of a core package is rather daunting, and is likely to cause much more of an uproar than the recent mask. Aaron is really tackling the low-hanging fruit at this point: leaves on the depgraph.