Re: Is Eucalyptus upstream dead?
On 9/4/19 7:23 AM, kuLa wrote: > On 2019-09-03 13:50:41, Noah Meyerhans wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 10:24:24AM +0100, kuLa wrote: on my side I would have no objections with a removal. >>> >>> Should we actively ask for removal or wait till normal bugs will become RC >>> and >>> removal for all py2 packages is going to be compulsory? >>> I personally am ok with both. >> >> In my experience, early removal is preferable. It gives users an >> indication that they should be looking for alternatives now, while >> things are still reasonably safe to use. They can migrate in their own >> time frame. Whereas if we wait until a (possibly security related) RC >> bug, the transition is much more abrupt for the users. > > I think above adheres to 'fail quickly' idea which I like, > In such case I think we should request removal of euca2ools from sid and > testing soon. Yes. > >> The big question to me is whether the packages should be removed from >> (old)stable. In general, I'd say yes for the same reasons as above. By >> keeping the packages in the archive, we are presenting a level of >> support for them that we may not actually be prepared to meet. > > I'm not convinced that removal from stable (even more from oldstable) is a > good > idea. It's going to disrupt functionality of the systems for users and create > unexpected (in stable) pain point. As far as I know python2 will be supported > by Debian through the Buster life cycle thus py2 tolls should operate fairly > securely as long as Buster is supported. Agreed. There's no good reason to remove it from Buster. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: Is Eucalyptus upstream dead?
On 2019-09-03 13:50:41, Noah Meyerhans wrote: > On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 10:24:24AM +0100, kuLa wrote: > > > on my side I would have no objections with a removal. > > > > Should we actively ask for removal or wait till normal bugs will become RC > > and > > removal for all py2 packages is going to be compulsory? > > I personally am ok with both. > > In my experience, early removal is preferable. It gives users an > indication that they should be looking for alternatives now, while > things are still reasonably safe to use. They can migrate in their own > time frame. Whereas if we wait until a (possibly security related) RC > bug, the transition is much more abrupt for the users. I think above adheres to 'fail quickly' idea which I like, In such case I think we should request removal of euca2ools from sid and testing soon. > The big question to me is whether the packages should be removed from > (old)stable. In general, I'd say yes for the same reasons as above. By > keeping the packages in the archive, we are presenting a level of > support for them that we may not actually be prepared to meet. I'm not convinced that removal from stable (even more from oldstable) is a good idea. It's going to disrupt functionality of the systems for users and create unexpected (in stable) pain point. As far as I know python2 will be supported by Debian through the Buster life cycle thus py2 tolls should operate fairly securely as long as Buster is supported. Probably we also should a keep this in mind for Bullseye release notes. -- |_|0|_| | |_|_|0| "Panta rei" | |0|0|0| kuLa | gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0x686930DD58C338B3 3DF1 A4DF C732 4688 38BC F121 6869 30DD 58C3 38B3 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Is Eucalyptus upstream dead?
On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 10:24:24AM +0100, kuLa wrote: > > on my side I would have no objections with a removal. > > Should we actively ask for removal or wait till normal bugs will become RC and > removal for all py2 packages is going to be compulsory? > I personally am ok with both. In my experience, early removal is preferable. It gives users an indication that they should be looking for alternatives now, while things are still reasonably safe to use. They can migrate in their own time frame. Whereas if we wait until a (possibly security related) RC bug, the transition is much more abrupt for the users. The big question to me is whether the packages should be removed from (old)stable. In general, I'd say yes for the same reasons as above. By keeping the packages in the archive, we are presenting a level of support for them that we may not actually be prepared to meet.
Re: Is Eucalyptus upstream dead?
On 2019-09-02 07:58:47, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Sun, Sep 01, 2019 at 04:33:55PM +, Jeremy Stanley a écrit : > > On 2019-09-01 14:17:21 +0100 (+0100), Marcin Kulisz wrote: > > > I'm looking into our tooling in regards of python2 removal and > > > noticed that https://github.com/eucalyptus/ looks basically dead > > > > The https://eucalyptus.cloud/ Web site now refers to source code > > residing in the https://github.com/Corymbia organization, which seems > > to have much more recent activity. > > > > > Are here any people who can claim to the contrary specifically in > > > regards to py3 support in euca2ools etc? > > > > Unfortunately, even though there's been some activity on the Corymbia > > fork of euca2ools, skimming the commit history and sources it looks > > like no work has been done on Py3K support. Worth trying just to be > > sure, but I would not get my hopes up. > > Hello everybody, > > on my side I would have no objections with a removal. Should we actively ask for removal or wait till normal bugs will become RC and removal for all py2 packages is going to be compulsory? I personally am ok with both. -- |_|0|_| | |_|_|0| "Panta rei" | |0|0|0| kuLa | gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0x686930DD58C338B3 3DF1 A4DF C732 4688 38BC F121 6869 30DD 58C3 38B3 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Is Eucalyptus upstream dead?
Le Sun, Sep 01, 2019 at 04:33:55PM +, Jeremy Stanley a écrit : > On 2019-09-01 14:17:21 +0100 (+0100), Marcin Kulisz wrote: > > I'm looking into our tooling in regards of python2 removal and > > noticed that https://github.com/eucalyptus/ looks basically dead > > The https://eucalyptus.cloud/ Web site now refers to source code > residing in the https://github.com/Corymbia organization, which seems > to have much more recent activity. > > > Are here any people who can claim to the contrary specifically in > > regards to py3 support in euca2ools etc? > > Unfortunately, even though there's been some activity on the Corymbia > fork of euca2ools, skimming the commit history and sources it looks > like no work has been done on Py3K support. Worth trying just to be > sure, but I would not get my hopes up. Hello everybody, on my side I would have no objections with a removal. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Akano, Uruma, Okinawa, Japan
Re: Is Eucalyptus upstream dead?
On 2019-09-01 14:17:21 +0100 (+0100), Marcin Kulisz wrote: > I'm looking into our tooling in regards of python2 removal and > noticed that https://github.com/eucalyptus/ looks basically dead I > went through a few repos in there and it looks like most of them > had last commits 2-3 years ago. The https://eucalyptus.cloud/ Web site now refers to source code residing in the https://github.com/Corymbia organization, which seems to have much more recent activity. > Are here any people who can claim to the contrary specifically in > regards to py3 support in euca2ools etc? [...] Unfortunately, even though there's been some activity on the Corymbia fork of euca2ools, skimming the commit history and sources it looks like no work has been done on Py3K support. Worth trying just to be sure, but I would not get my hopes up. -- Jeremy Stanley signature.asc Description: PGP signature
