Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm?
Hello, On 2022-12-13 01:51, Graham Inggs wrote: 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. Am I right that whichever the choice, there will be only one supported Python version in bookworm? 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? [1] https://bugs.debian.org/1021984 [2] https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/python3.11-add.html [3] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=python3.11=debian-python@lists.debian.org [4] https://veronneau.org/debian-python-team-2022-sprint-report.html [5] https://release.debian.org/bookworm/freeze_policy.html [6] https://udd.debian.org/bugs/?release=bookworm=ign=7=7=only=python3.11=debian-python%40lists.debian.org=1=1=id=asc=html#results Best, Andrius
Python 3.11 for bookworm?
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 [1] https://bugs.debian.org/1021984 [2] https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/python3.11-add.html [3] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=python3.11=debian-python@lists.debian.org [4] https://veronneau.org/debian-python-team-2022-sprint-report.html [5] https://release.debian.org/bookworm/freeze_policy.html [6] https://udd.debian.org/bugs/?release=bookworm=ign=7=7=only=python3.11=debian-python%40lists.debian.org=1=1=id=asc=html#results Dependency level 2 omniorb-dfsg python-pgmagick pythonmagick xdmf Dependency level 7 boost1.74 guiqwt python-line-profiler python-xmlsec Dependency level 8 cypari2 renpy Dependency level 10 pybdsf Dependency level 13 sunpy
Re: [MBF] pybuild: Stop calling setup.py test?
On 11/12/2022 11:50, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote: On 2022-12-10 17 h 09, Colin Watson wrote: On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 06:27:22PM +, Stefano Rivera wrote: Calling "setup.py test" has been deprecated since setuptools 28.5. That's 6 years ago. This is the list we used during the sprint to coordinate: https://pad.riseup.net/p/FixSetupTest-keep It's probably outdated though and I feel a real MBF would be helpful to keep track at this point... Yep, let's get an MBF in place for this. The BTS with usertags (or the BTS view through UDD with usertags) is a much better way of tracking a todo list at this stage. I'm not sure if there is a published deprecation timeline for "setup.py test", but given the number of nasty surprises we've had from setuptools over the last year with their current break-it-and-see-who-complains development paradigm, let's assume the worst. Given it's not currently broken, I guess it would start with severity:important and become severity:serious once setuptools stops supporting this? Assuming that we're not going to suddenly get a breaking setuptools before bookworm, the MBF text should have a note that this will not become serious before the release of bookworm. (Do we know if that is true?) cheers Stuart -- Stuart Prescott http://www.nanonanonano.net/ stu...@nanonanonano.net Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ stu...@debian.org GPG fingerprint 90E2 D2C1 AD14 6A1B 7EBB 891D BBC1 7EBB 1396 F2F7
