On Sun, Jun 20 2021, Kaashif Hymabaccus <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello ports@, > > I was looking at upgrading mail/rss2email to 3.13.1, but this would > require textproc/py-feedparser to be upgraded to version 6, due to > rss2email relying on some changes made in version 6. > > The problem is that feedparser 6 makes several breaking changes, > including completely dropping Python 2 support. > > Dropping Python 2 support is probably not a big deal for most ports > (except perhaps www/canto, which I notice has "MODPY_VERSION = > ${MODPY_DEFAULT_VERSION_2}"). > > If a package drops support for Python 2 and another package needs it, > how do we deal with that? Just remove the old package?
That's one way to handle it. Yesterday I removed www/canto from the tree, but that's not enough to drop python3 support in feedparser: shannon ~$ sqlite3 /usr/local/share/sqlports 'select distinct * from Depends where dependspath like "%feedparser" order by fullpkgpath;' 7577|net/charm|textproc/py-feedparser|||textproc/py-feedparser|1|0 10993|www/canto|textproc/py-feedparser|||textproc/py-feedparser|1|1 10993|www/canto|textproc/py-feedparser|||textproc/py-feedparser|2|1 11605|www/rawdog|textproc/py-feedparser|||textproc/py-feedparser|1|0 rawdog doesn't support python3 either (last release 2018). net/charm: probably doesn't (last release 2013). > Port the > package to Python 3 and send patches to the authors? That last one > seems not so trivial. Indeed it isn't. Some people (including me) did use 2to3 to convert some low-priority python scripts to python3 compatible code, but I've never seen someone hand-patch a python module in the ports tree so that it supports python3. That doesn't sound like a good idea. If a python module doesn't support python3 by now, that probably means that upstream doesn't care any more. Sometimes you can find a more maintained fork, sometimes not. -- jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE
