Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm?
Hi Andrius On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 at 07:13, Andrius Merkys wrote: > Am I right that whichever the choice, there will be only one supported > Python version in bookworm? Yes, I believe that was the decision made at DebConf 22. > I believe there are many packages that will > FTBFS with Python 3.11 as default (i.e., packages that use only the > default Python). Was there an attempt to rebuild the archive with that > setting? A typical test rebuild will only catch FTBFS in dependency level one (and maybe level two) of the transition tracker. In the higher levels, you'll get false positives due to failed imports of the modules that need rebuilding. Similarly, uploading python3-defaults to experimental and checking for autopkgtest failures will also result in false positives. For reference, the python3.11-add tracker lists 594 packages (excluding unknowns), and the python3.11-default tracker lists 351. With the ben files currently used in the trackers, packages still red on the first tracker also appear on the second. For what it's worth, an incremental test rebuild of the first three dependency levels was done in an Ubuntu PPA [3]. Roughly 80% of the packages involved in the python3.11-default transition were tested, and roughly 80% of the builds were successful. All build failures are counted here, including dependency-wait and architectures that have never had a successful build. A similar test rebuild was done in January 2022 for Python 3.10 [4] and I think the numbers indicate we are in a very similar state. Regards Graham [1] https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/python3.11-add.html [2] https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/python3.11-default.html [3] https://launchpad.net/~pythoneers/+archive/ubuntu/python3.11-default [4] https://launchpad.net/~pythoneers/+archive/ubuntu/python3.10-default
Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm?
On 2022-12-12 18 h 51, Graham Inggs wrote: Dear Python Team Looking at the current state of the 'adding Python 3.11 as a supported version' transition [1], the tracker [2] shows only 12 red packages (excluding unknowns and packages not in testing) remaining, copied below for reference. We believe all FTBFS and autopkgtest regression bugs have already been filed and tagged. The current state of bugs tagged 'python3.11' [3] is 116 resolved and 49 still open. Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to fixing these, and especially to the organizers of the recent Python sprint [4]. As this transition is non-blocking (i.e. uploaded packages are able to migrate ahead of python3-defaults), we could wait for the remaining bugs to be fixed, or for auto-removal to take its course. However, with the bookworm transition freeze only one month away [5], we'd like to hear from the Python Team within the next week whether they wish to proceed with Python 3.11 being the only supported version for bookworm (in which case we will allow python3-defaults to migrate right now) or, revert the changes in python3-defaults and have Python 3.10 as the only supported version for bookworm. Should it be the former, we'd like an undertaking from the Python Team that they will help resolve the remaining bugs against key packages [6], as these cannot easily be avoided by manual or auto-removals. On behalf of the Release Team Graham I still feel the move to 3.11 so late in the release cycle was cavalier and we should have used our energies to fix issues we had in the archive instead of trying to fix 3.11 bugs. I've said it already here, but it's very frustrating to work on packaging python libraries and apps for a whole release cycle, just to see all that work put in the bin at the last minute because upstream doesn't support 3.11. I hate to be put in a position where I have to tell upstreams (some with whom I've been collaborating for years) "ahem, by the way, you have 2 months to fix this or it won't be in the next Debian stable release". That said, 3.11 proponents certainly walked the walk and fixed a lot of stuff already. Kudos to them. I don't feel like I can take position on this. I'm certainly biased by one of the packages I really care about not being 3.11 compatible (and probably won't be before the release). All I know is this late transition leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Louis-Philippe Véronneau ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ po...@debian.org / veronneau.org ⠈⠳⣄ OpenPGP_0xE1E5457C8BAD4113.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm?
Hi Graham, On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 11:51:11PM +, Graham Inggs wrote: > Dear Python Team > > Looking at the current state of the 'adding Python 3.11 as a supported > version' transition [1], the tracker [2] shows only 12 red packages > (excluding unknowns and packages not in testing) remaining, copied > below for reference. > [...] If Python 3.11 is the default, then it is highly likely that Spyder will not be included: debugpy, which is a dependency of Spyder and python3-ipykernel (and lots of things that depend on that) seems to require major work upstream to make it fully compatible with Python 3.11. This is work in progress, but I don't know whether it will be ready in time for the freeze. At the moment, I have worked around this problem by just skipping the failing tests, but that is far from an ideal solution. Best wishes, Julian
Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm?
Hi all, On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 10:15:37AM +0100, Timo Röhling wrote: > One remaining problem is the unmaintained nose package, which is not > compatible with Python 3.11 and still a dependency of 200+ packages, > including ~40 key packages [1]. I've seen that crusoe has done some work > patching up nose, but AFAICT it is not building yet. > > Is this something we can resolve in time, either by fixing nose or > removing it altogether? I will try to fix nose. The remaining problem is just failing doctest. On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 09:57:57AM +, c.bu...@posteo.jp wrote: > This question is just for my learning: Why is nose patched? Upstream nose is > unmaintained for years. > > I understand that you cannot drop nose from Debian in the current situation > of a freeze in one months and so many dependencies. > > But isn't there a Debian process/workflow to "warn" package maintainers > about an upcoming package drop of one of there dependend packages to put > some pressure into it? Looking into the list of over 200 packages I see this > also as a chance to clean out some other unmaintained (and maybe not so > important) packages from the Debian repo. There are bugs filed against every package: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=python-modules-t...@lists.alioth.debian.org;tag=nose-rm -- Dmitry Shachnev signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm?
Am 13.12.2022 10:15 schrieb Timo Röhling: One remaining problem is the unmaintained nose package [...] done some work patching up nose This question is just for my learning: Why is nose patched? Upstream nose is unmaintained for years. I understand that you cannot drop nose from Debian in the current situation of a freeze in one months and so many dependencies. But isn't there a Debian process/workflow to "warn" package maintainers about an upcoming package drop of one of there dependend packages to put some pressure into it? Looking into the list of over 200 packages I see this also as a chance to clean out some other unmaintained (and maybe not so important) packages from the Debian repo.
Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm?
* Graham Inggs [2022-12-12 23:51]: with the bookworm transition freeze only one month away [5], we'd like to hear from the Python Team within the next week whether they wish to proceed with Python 3.11 being the only supported version for bookworm [...] Should it be the former, we'd like an undertaking from the Python Team that they will help resolve the remaining bugs against key packages One remaining problem is the unmaintained nose package, which is not compatible with Python 3.11 and still a dependency of 200+ packages, including ~40 key packages [1]. I've seen that crusoe has done some work patching up nose, but AFAICT it is not building yet. Is this something we can resolve in time, either by fixing nose or removing it altogether? If yes, +1 for Python 3.11 Cheers Timo [1] https://udd.debian.org/bugs/?release=bookworm=ign=7=7=only=nose-rm=python-modules-team%40lists.alioth.debian.org=1=1=id=asc=html#results -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ╭╮ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ │ Timo Röhling │ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ │ 9B03 EBB9 8300 DF97 C2B1 23BF CC8C 6BDD 1403 F4CA │ ⠈⠳⣄ ╰╯ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
