Re: Python 3.7 or 3.6 in Buster
On 05.11.18 10:32, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 05.11.18 09:17, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote: >> On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 21:09, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> >>> Hi there! >>> >>> During Debconf, we decided we would not decide yet, and see in November >>> if we think it's reasonable to allow Python 3.7 to reach Buster. Time >>> has passed, RC bugs have been fixed, and now is probably the time to >>> open this thread. >>> >>> To me, as much as the OpenStack packages are concerned, I'm kind of fine >>> with 3.7, modulo fixing this bug in Glance: >>> >>> https://bugs.debian.org/911947 >>> >>> which I forwarded here: >>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/glance/+bug/1800601 >>> >>> It looks like this bug is 3.7.1 specific (ie: there's no bug if using >>> Python 3.7.0). Upstream had a look, and didn't find a way to fix (yet). >>> Help appreciated. >>> >> >> I commented on the bug. >> >> >>> It looks like everything else in OpenStack works. >>> >>> What is the situation for other packages? Do we have lots of Python 3.7 >>> problems remaining? If so, it'd be nice to have them listed somewhere, >>> so we have a clear picture of what's going on. >>> >> >> We're going through the process of switching to 3.7 as default in Ubuntu >> right now, so I think it makes sense to switch Debian too fairly soon. I'm >> trying to remember to attach all my patches to Debian bug reports... > > in Ubuntu, we were able to migrate it (equivalent to the unstable -> testing > migration) with 3.7 as the default. We are in progress removing 3.6 as > supported, which exposed some autopkg test regressions which are currently > worked on. See > http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html#python3-defaults > >> Cheers, >> mwh >> >> Do other fellow DD also think it's kind of ok to keep 3.7 in Buster? >>> >>> Also, Doko, do you plan on upgrading to newer point release? Python >>> 3.7.1-rc1 and 3.7.1 both were the cause of troubles for me. I just hope >>> this wont happen again (though I'd understand if you wished to upgrade >>> once more before the freeze). In any ways, it'd be nice to communicate >>> what you're planning on doing. > > I'm in favor of going with 3.7, and would like to update to the current 3.7 > release branch at freeze, and then to 3.7.2 later, expected in January. fyi, the release team accepted the transition, and 3.7 should arrive as the default in unstable very soonish.
Re: Python 3.7 or 3.6 in Buster
> No one in Debian (or Ubuntu) reported it. That is hardly surprising, most Debian/Ubuntu users will be using the default python3 version. IMO (I am just a random dd) if Debian is going to switch the default python version for buster it should be done ASAP to maximize the amount of testing with the new python version before release.
Re: [SUSPECTED SPAM] Re: Python 3.7 or 3.6 in Buster
On 05.11.18 20:31, Jerome Kieffer wrote: > On Mon, 05 Nov 2018 12:26:41 -0500 > Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> I only found out about it due to an upstream bug report on OS X. No one in >> Debian (or Ubuntu) reported it. > > I got one also in fabio: > https://github.com/silx-kit/fabio/pull/243 > Actually there has been a depreciation warning for ages (back to > python 3.4) but this has been silenced since then. > There may be many such bugs around in many packages! I'm seeing a handful more, in failing autopkg tests which run without the allow-stderr restriction. But not a lot of people care yet about succeeding autopkg tests ... Filing bug reports about those.
Re: [SUSPECTED SPAM] Re: Python 3.7 or 3.6 in Buster
On Monday, November 05, 2018 08:31:56 PM Jerome Kieffer wrote: > On Mon, 05 Nov 2018 12:26:41 -0500 > > Scott Kitterman wrote: > > I only found out about it due to an upstream bug report on OS X. No one > > in > > Debian (or Ubuntu) reported it. > > I got one also in fabio: > https://github.com/silx-kit/fabio/pull/243 > Actually there has been a depreciation warning for ages (back to > python 3.4) but this has been silenced since then. > There may be many such bugs around in many packages! Thanks. Related, but not the same. There was no deprecation warning for re.sub like there was for re.split. In any case, it reinforces my concern. Scott K
Re: [SUSPECTED SPAM] Re: Python 3.7 or 3.6 in Buster
On Mon, 05 Nov 2018 12:26:41 -0500 Scott Kitterman wrote: > I only found out about it due to an upstream bug report on OS X. No one in > Debian (or Ubuntu) reported it. I got one also in fabio: https://github.com/silx-kit/fabio/pull/243 Actually there has been a depreciation warning for ages (back to python 3.4) but this has been silenced since then. There may be many such bugs around in many packages! Cheers, Jerome
Re: Python 3.7 or 3.6 in Buster
On Monday, November 05, 2018 05:31:36 PM Ondrej Novy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> po 5. 11. 2018 v 9:09 odesílatel Thomas Goirand napsal:
> > Do other fellow DD also think it's kind of ok to keep 3.7 in Buster?
>
> +1 for keeping 3.7 in Buster and switch defaults to 3.7.
I recently got burned by changes in the way re.sub works in python3.7 (see [1]
and search for re.sub, [2], and [3]). From the whatsnew:
> re.sub() now replaces empty matches adjacent to a previous non-empty match.
> For example re.sub('x*', '-', 'abxd') returns now '-a-b--d-' instead of
> '-a-b-d-' (the first minus between ‘b’ and ‘d’ replaces ‘x’, and the second
> minus replaces an empty string between ‘x’ and ‘d’).
This change broke canonicalization in dkimpy. Once I knew about it, I fixed
it, but the default 'import foo' autopkgtests we have on so many modules won't
find this (I don't think, it didn't in my case).
I only found out about it due to an upstream bug report on OS X. No one in
Debian (or Ubuntu) reported it.
Does anyone have an idea about how common problems from this change might be?
That particular package uses re.sub 8 times and only one use was problematic.
In any case, I don't have anything other than a vague concern based on one of
my packages that there are more hidden problems.
Scott K
[1] https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/3.7.html
[2] https://bugs.python.org/issue25054
[3] https://bugs.python.org/issue32308
Re: Python 3.7 or 3.6 in Buster
Hi, po 5. 11. 2018 v 9:09 odesílatel Thomas Goirand napsal: > Do other fellow DD also think it's kind of ok to keep 3.7 in Buster? > +1 for keeping 3.7 in Buster and switch defaults to 3.7. Thanks. -- Best regards Ondřej Nový Email: n...@ondrej.org PGP: 3D98 3C52 EB85 980C 46A5 6090 3573 1255 9D1E 064B
Re: Python 3.7 or 3.6 in Buster
On 11/5/18 9:08 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > Hi there! > > During Debconf, we decided we would not decide yet, and see in November > if we think it's reasonable to allow Python 3.7 to reach Buster. Time > has passed, RC bugs have been fixed, and now is probably the time to > open this thread. > > To me, as much as the OpenStack packages are concerned, I'm kind of fine > with 3.7, modulo fixing this bug in Glance: > > https://bugs.debian.org/911947 > > which I forwarded here: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/glance/+bug/1800601 FYI, I have just closed this bug with a patch from James Page. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: Python 3.7 or 3.6 in Buster
On 05.11.18 09:17, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote: > On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 21:09, Thomas Goirand wrote: > >> Hi there! >> >> During Debconf, we decided we would not decide yet, and see in November >> if we think it's reasonable to allow Python 3.7 to reach Buster. Time >> has passed, RC bugs have been fixed, and now is probably the time to >> open this thread. >> >> To me, as much as the OpenStack packages are concerned, I'm kind of fine >> with 3.7, modulo fixing this bug in Glance: >> >> https://bugs.debian.org/911947 >> >> which I forwarded here: >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/glance/+bug/1800601 >> >> It looks like this bug is 3.7.1 specific (ie: there's no bug if using >> Python 3.7.0). Upstream had a look, and didn't find a way to fix (yet). >> Help appreciated. >> > > I commented on the bug. > > >> It looks like everything else in OpenStack works. >> >> What is the situation for other packages? Do we have lots of Python 3.7 >> problems remaining? If so, it'd be nice to have them listed somewhere, >> so we have a clear picture of what's going on. >> > > We're going through the process of switching to 3.7 as default in Ubuntu > right now, so I think it makes sense to switch Debian too fairly soon. I'm > trying to remember to attach all my patches to Debian bug reports... in Ubuntu, we were able to migrate it (equivalent to the unstable -> testing migration) with 3.7 as the default. We are in progress removing 3.6 as supported, which exposed some autopkg test regressions which are currently worked on. See http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html#python3-defaults > Cheers, > mwh > > Do other fellow DD also think it's kind of ok to keep 3.7 in Buster? >> >> Also, Doko, do you plan on upgrading to newer point release? Python >> 3.7.1-rc1 and 3.7.1 both were the cause of troubles for me. I just hope >> this wont happen again (though I'd understand if you wished to upgrade >> once more before the freeze). In any ways, it'd be nice to communicate >> what you're planning on doing. I'm in favor of going with 3.7, and would like to update to the current 3.7 release branch at freeze, and then to 3.7.2 later, expected in January. Matthias
Re: Python 3.7 or 3.6 in Buster
On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 21:09, Thomas Goirand wrote: > Hi there! > > During Debconf, we decided we would not decide yet, and see in November > if we think it's reasonable to allow Python 3.7 to reach Buster. Time > has passed, RC bugs have been fixed, and now is probably the time to > open this thread. > > To me, as much as the OpenStack packages are concerned, I'm kind of fine > with 3.7, modulo fixing this bug in Glance: > > https://bugs.debian.org/911947 > > which I forwarded here: > https://bugs.launchpad.net/glance/+bug/1800601 > > It looks like this bug is 3.7.1 specific (ie: there's no bug if using > Python 3.7.0). Upstream had a look, and didn't find a way to fix (yet). > Help appreciated. > I commented on the bug. > It looks like everything else in OpenStack works. > > What is the situation for other packages? Do we have lots of Python 3.7 > problems remaining? If so, it'd be nice to have them listed somewhere, > so we have a clear picture of what's going on. > We're going through the process of switching to 3.7 as default in Ubuntu right now, so I think it makes sense to switch Debian too fairly soon. I'm trying to remember to attach all my patches to Debian bug reports... Cheers, mwh Do other fellow DD also think it's kind of ok to keep 3.7 in Buster? > > Also, Doko, do you plan on upgrading to newer point release? Python > 3.7.1-rc1 and 3.7.1 both were the cause of troubles for me. I just hope > this wont happen again (though I'd understand if you wished to upgrade > once more before the freeze). In any ways, it'd be nice to communicate > what you're planning on doing. > > Cheers, > > Thomas Goirand (zigo) > >
Python 3.7 or 3.6 in Buster
Hi there! During Debconf, we decided we would not decide yet, and see in November if we think it's reasonable to allow Python 3.7 to reach Buster. Time has passed, RC bugs have been fixed, and now is probably the time to open this thread. To me, as much as the OpenStack packages are concerned, I'm kind of fine with 3.7, modulo fixing this bug in Glance: https://bugs.debian.org/911947 which I forwarded here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/glance/+bug/1800601 It looks like this bug is 3.7.1 specific (ie: there's no bug if using Python 3.7.0). Upstream had a look, and didn't find a way to fix (yet). Help appreciated. It looks like everything else in OpenStack works. What is the situation for other packages? Do we have lots of Python 3.7 problems remaining? If so, it'd be nice to have them listed somewhere, so we have a clear picture of what's going on. Do other fellow DD also think it's kind of ok to keep 3.7 in Buster? Also, Doko, do you plan on upgrading to newer point release? Python 3.7.1-rc1 and 3.7.1 both were the cause of troubles for me. I just hope this wont happen again (though I'd understand if you wished to upgrade once more before the freeze). In any ways, it'd be nice to communicate what you're planning on doing. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
