On Sun, 2020-01-12 at 17:55 -0500, Joshua Kinard wrote: > On 1/12/2020 17:46, David Seifert wrote: > > On Sun, 2020-01-12 at 17:43 -0500, Joshua Kinard wrote: > > > On 1/12/2020 17:32, Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: > > > > On Sonntag, 12. Januar 2020 23:07:24 CET Joshua Kinard wrote: > > > > > It might be worthwhile to treat the removal of Python-2.7 > > > > > from > > > > > the tree in > > > > > the same manner as an EAPI deprecation and removal, given how > > > > > ingrained it > > > > > is due to its longevity. That will minimize the whiplash- > > > > > effect > > > > > of emerge > > > > > complaining about slot conflicts and dependency > > > > > conflicts. Like > > > > > I just ran > > > > > into w/ setuptools-18.104.22.168's release. > > > > > > > > So, no packaging of >=setuptools-45.0.0 until the end of 2020? > > > > Do > > > > you want to > > > > freeze all python libs that upstreams are dropping py27 support > > > > from? > > > > > > > > > > Not saying not to package it. Right now, the issue seems to be > > > it > > > causes > > > dependency conflicts in emerge's depgraph parsing when > > > PYTHON_TARGETS > > > includes python2_7 support. Remove that and stick with python3_* > > > only, then > > > other packages that need python2_7 will whine. > > > > > > Did setuptools-45.0.0 remove all python2 support? I looked at > > > the > > > commit > > > log, and it's only the title that any meaningful hint that it may > > > have, > > > "dev-python/setuptools: Bump to 45.0.0 (py3 only)". If it did, > > > then > > > that > > > change is the right change, but anyone with a userland that has a > > > mix > > > of > > > python2 and python3 is going to have difficulty getting that > > > update > > > to merge > > > in, so I really can't go higher than setuptools-44.0.0 for the > > > time > > > being. > > > > > > > https://setuptools.readthedocs.io/en/latest/history.html#v45-0-0 > > At least you didn't squirrel that behind a lmgtfy link </smirk> > > In any event, it's clear the tree does not seem set up real well to > handle > the random removal or deprecation of python2 support. And > considering > python2.7 isn't dead //yet//, I have to question the wisdom of > removing > packages that still support 2.7, and also wonder if there's a way to > be more > graceful in handling updates to packages whose upstream decides to > remove > python2 support. > > Or we can just continue down the current Mad Max methodology and > leave it to > every developer for themselves. >
Or - you know - you could help? Talk is cheap, gracefully removing py2 from the tree is the hard part. A quick grep tells me we have 4388 ebuilds in the tree with python_targets_python2_7 in IUSE. Have fun devising a plan (and then doing the actual work). Pro-tip: "Don't remove py2" is not an actual plan when many important core dependencies have started removing py2 already.