On Sat, 2020-03-07 at 18:49 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Ebuilds.  183 of them.  One is stuck on py2 but is included as only
> > revdep.
> Just the ebuild being outdated doesn't sound like a sufficient reason
> for removal of a package, at least not for those packages that install
> applications for the end user.

The list is almost exclusively about dev-python/, i.e. packages that do
not install end-user applications but Python modules.

> > But that's by no means all ebuilds like that, just a subset Python
> > team doesn't see much of a point maintaining.
> Why had they been added then, in the first place?

You should ask the person who added them.  Some of them probably used to
have revdeps in the past but lost them (either because they switched to
other deps or were removed).  Some of them were added because somebody
used it at some point.  Some of them were added because someone thought
it would be great idea to package a lot of Python modules because we

Some of these someones have retired since.  Some left the Python team. 
Some weren't ever part of it yet dumped packages on us.

I could go on like this for much longer but what's the purpose?
The point is, python@ has a lot of packages, we can't maintain them all.
These packages weren't really maintained for at least a few months, so
dropping them lets us focus on packages that do have dependencies or
otherwise seem more useful.

I mean, surely, we can try to test ~300 packages on py3.7 just to
discover half of them were added without tests, large number have
failing tests, some have silly mistakes...

Best regards,
Michał Górny

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to