Re: Python3.8 as default final status

2020-04-03 Thread Sergio Durigan Junior 
On Saturday, March 28 2020, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> On March 28, 2020 5:10:42 AM UTC, Sergio Durigan Junior  
> wrote:
>>On Friday, March 27 2020, Håvard Flaget Aasen wrote:
>>
>>> On 27.03.2020 20:09, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
 On Friday, March 27 2020, Scott Kitterman wrote:
 
> The python3-defaults with python3.8 as the default python3 has
>>migrated to 
> Testing thanks to the release team hammering things around until it
>>went.
 
 Thanks for this.
 
> Most of the outstanding autipkgtest failures with python3.8 were
>>fixed either 
> in unstable or in git/BTS.  Here are the remaining issues that
>>someone (who 
> isn't me) should have a look at:
>
> celery/4.2.1-5: #952217 autorm 4/13
 
 FWIW, I looked at this a little bit, but could not make much
>>progress.
 I'm very interested in fixing this since it impacts pagure.  I'll
>>try to
 investigate more this weekend, but if someone else wants to take a
>>look
 (and let me know), you're more than welcome!
 
>>>
>>> I believe I already fixed that package, it's waiting for someone to
>>> review and upload it. Did you look at the repository in salsa?
>>
>>I had looked at the repository when I was working with the package.
>>I see you pushed your changes 2 days ago, but the last time I looked at
>>the package was at least 7 days ago.
>>
>>Anyhow, I thank you for letting me know, but I am not sure I am
>>satisfied with the solution.  You basically disabled the test on Python
>>3.8, which obviously works, but doesn't really tell me whether there
>>was
>>indeed a problem with the package/testcase or not.
>
> I completely agree.  It's just papering over the problem.  It's not in the 
> spirit of the Debian Social Contract (#3).
>
>>My approach (failed, so far) was to try and figure out what was
>>happening, and then devise a proper fix for it.  My next step was going
>>to be to involve upstream in this.
>>
>>Would you like to follow up with them and check if they're are aware of
>>the failure?  Maybe they already have a proper solution for it.
>
> Upstream should definitely be involved.

... and the package was uploaded anyway :-/.  I'm Cc'ing Jonathan in
case he hasn't seen these messages.

Anyway, I still think it's necessary to follow up on this and involve
upstream; simply disabling the test that is failing is not the Debian
way.

Thanks,

-- 
Sergio
GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF  31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36
Please send encrypted e-mail if possible
http://sergiodj.net/

Re: Build Python 2.7 version >= 2.7.15 on Debian 9

2020-04-03 Thread Jeremy Stanley 
On 2020-04-03 23:21:25 +0300 (+0300), ellis.mag...@pp.inet.fi wrote:
[...]
> What is the correct way to build a clean version of python2.7 on
> Debian9 that will be compatible with already packaged python2.7
> modules?

The Python modules with C extensions packaged in Debian are built
against the Python development library headers for the version of
the Python interpreter which is packaged in Debian. If you replace
the interpreter with a different version I expect you'll at least
have to relink, if not entirely recompile, those extensions against
newer headers. I don't personally know a way to go about that short
of rebuilding those additional modules from source. You might be
better off switching to a newer version of Debian which provides a
newer Python 2.7 release and has the other packages you need already
built against it, or using some other Python package management
solution like conda or virtualenv.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Build Python 2.7 version >= 2.7.15 on Debian 9

2020-04-03 Thread ellis.mag...@pp.inet.fi 
Hi,

I would need help to build & install Python 2.7 with version greater or equal 
to 2.7.15 on Debian 9.

I succeeded in doing so from original Python 2.7.15 source but get failed 
dependancies when adding already packaged modules such as numpy, matplotlib and 
protobuf. My program fails on include modules statements.

I try all possible hacks to pass each failure, but there is no methodology in 
this approach.

What is the correct way to build a clean version of python2.7 on Debian9 that 
will be compatible with already packaged python2.7 modules?

Thanks

Telepathy-gabble and python2-rm

2020-04-03 Thread Scott Kitterman 
There was a telepathy-gabble upload this week that took out a bunch of python2 
build-deps, but it looks like telepathy-gabble-tests retained many of them as 
depends:

https://packages.debian.org/unstable/telepathy-gabble-tests

In particular, this is the last package in Testing that depends on python-
twisted.  If this could go away, then a bunch of stuff could get decrufted.

Scott K

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