Newcomers project: DPMT/PAPT git repos verification

2020-07-09 Thread Sandro Tosi
Hello, i would like to propose a project to make sure our teams (DPMT/PAPT) repos are being used correctly; it has a broader set of requirements than the pristine-tar one (and so it's more complex), thus a separate message. The checks i have in mind for now, are: * packages in DPMT/PAPT need to

Newcomers project: DPMT/PAPT pristine-tar verification

2020-07-09 Thread Sandro Tosi
Hello, i would like to propose a project to make sure our teams (DPMT/PAPT) repos are using pristine-tar properly. The checks i have in mind for now, are: * pristine-tar branch must exist, if not -> it's a bug * pristine-tar + upstream branch must produce the same tarball as downloaded from the

mercurial switch to python3 in debian unstable - July 16th, 2020

2020-07-09 Thread Sandro Tosi
Hello, this email is to inform the maintainers of the reverse dependencies of mercurial of the plan to upload to unstable the python3 version next Thursday. We want to be extra-safe with the switch, hence this email. In To: to this email the maintainers mailing list + key other MLs and addresses,

Re: Bug#962574: ITP: dephell -- project management for Python

2020-07-09 Thread Nicholas D Steeves
Hi Scott, devel, and Python team, Nicholas D Steeves writes: > Control: block -1 by 962574 > > Tomlkit seems to be required for self-tests. > Thank you for taking care of tomlkit so quickly! I wish I had more time and energy to make faster progress with DepHell. Today I discovered it appears

Joining the DPMT

2020-07-09 Thread Federico Ceratto
Hello, I was in the DPMT back when it was on Alioth and I would like to join it again to backport python-flasgger and help with other packages as the need arises. My Salsa login is "federico". I have read the policy and I accept it:

Re: Is it time to remove python-numpy from testing?

2020-07-09 Thread Paul Gevers
Hi On 09-07-2020 21:16, peter green wrote: > All of the reverse dependencies of python-numpy have already been > removed from testing. So IMO > it makes sense to remove python-numpy from testing at this point, do > other people agree? I think it makes sense, so I added a removal hint. Paul

Re: Is it time to remove python-numpy from testing?

2020-07-09 Thread Ondrej Novy
Hi, čt 9. 7. 2020 v 21:25 odesílatel peter green napsal: > python-numpy* is no longer buildable in testing due to the removal of the > "cython" binary package. > The maintainer has requested removal of python-numpy from unstable but the > ftpmasters have not yet > actioned it, presumably

Re: The python command in Debian

2020-07-09 Thread Ondrej Novy
Hi, čt 9. 7. 2020 v 15:27 odesílatel Matthias Klose napsal: > Describing here a solution which is implemented for Ubuntu focal (20.04 > LTS). A > new source package what-is-python (-perl-dont-hurt-me) ships binary > packages > python-is-python2, python-dev-is-python2, python-is-python3 and >

Is it time to remove python-numpy from testing?

2020-07-09 Thread peter green
python-numpy* is no longer buildable in testing due to the removal of the "cython" binary package. The maintainer has requested removal of python-numpy from unstable but the ftpmasters have not yet actioned it, presumably because there are still reverse-dependencies in unstable. A rc bug is

Re: The python command in Debian

2020-07-09 Thread paultag
On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 04:55:33PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > I don't follow your logic there. Why is it hard to explain? Python > was a programming language, and its last interpreter (2.7) is no > longer developed or supported. Python3 (formerly Python3000) is also > a programming language,

Re: The python command in Debian

2020-07-09 Thread Jeremy Stanley
On 2020-07-09 15:26:47 +0200 (+0200), Matthias Klose wrote: > As written in [1], bullseye will not see unversioned python > packages and the unversioned python command being built from the > python-defaults package. > > It seems to be a little bit more controversial what should happen > to the

The python command in Debian

2020-07-09 Thread Matthias Klose
As written in [1], bullseye will not see unversioned python packages and the unversioned python command being built from the python-defaults package. It seems to be a little bit more controversial what should happen to the python command in the long term. Some people argue that python should

Re: Python2 packages for bullseye

2020-07-09 Thread Matthias Klose
On 7/9/20 1:45 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Thursday, July 9, 2020 7:21:45 AM EDT Matthias Klose wrote: >> The removal of packages still depending on Python2 looks good [1], however >> we have a bunch of packages that still require Python2, and where >> maintainers explicitly asked to keep

Re: Python2 packages for bullseye

2020-07-09 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Thursday, July 9, 2020 7:21:45 AM EDT Matthias Klose wrote: > The removal of packages still depending on Python2 looks good [1], however > we have a bunch of packages that still require Python2, and where > maintainers explicitly asked to keep those in the distro [2]. Among those > are pypy

Python2 packages for bullseye

2020-07-09 Thread Matthias Klose
The removal of packages still depending on Python2 looks good [1], however we have a bunch of packages that still require Python2, and where maintainers explicitly asked to keep those in the distro [2]. Among those are pypy and pypy3 which need Python2 for bootstrapping. I'm going to keep the