Re: Bug#934398: RM: beanstalkc -- ROM; no Python 3 subpackage and no reverse deps
Hi Ondrej,
On 07:49 Mon 12 Aug , Ondrej Novy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> first of all I would like to say thanks to Andrey. He is hard working to
> remove Python 2 from Debian. It's not easy job.
Indeed, it's not an easy job, thanks for seeing to it.
>
> ne 11. 8. 2019 v 9:24 odesílatel Apollon Oikonomopoulos
> napsal:
>
> > While I understand the urge to get Python 2 out of bullseye as early as
> > possible, I don't feel happy about how this particular case was handled,
> > and I notice that it is not in agreement with what was posted on
> > debian-python[1].
> >
>
> it was. Cite:
>
> DPMT / PAPT
> ===
> No need to wait for a bug report. If you have a leaf package, remove it now.
>
> If you're not a DD, do it in the git repo and ping Piotr.
>
> beanstalkc was team leaf package without reverse {build-,}depends.
I never asked why you thought beanstalkc should be removed, I asked why
you removed it *without letting me know in advance*. beanstalkc had a
perfectly good reason to be in the archive, which the team couldn't know
of without parsing the whole source archive and which thus didn't take
into account.
Cc'ing the uploaders would have taken less than 5 seconds. Figuring out
what happened, writing two follow-up e-mails and filing the ITP took me
more than an hour, and this is what I'm complaining about. Pardon me,
but team maintenance is no excuse for poor communication.
> - X-Debbugs-Cc beansta...@packages.debian.org at bug report time,
> >as finding out at the time of *removal* is arguably too late.
> >
>
> yes, this make sense.
I saw that the next round of removals was Cc'd, so thanks for that.
Regards,
Apollon
Re: Bug#934398: RM: beanstalkc -- ROM; no Python 3 subpackage and no reverse deps
Hi,
first of all I would like to say thanks to Andrey. He is hard working to
remove Python 2 from Debian. It's not easy job.
ne 11. 8. 2019 v 9:24 odesílatel Apollon Oikonomopoulos
napsal:
> While I understand the urge to get Python 2 out of bullseye as early as
> possible, I don't feel happy about how this particular case was handled,
> and I notice that it is not in agreement with what was posted on
> debian-python[1].
>
it was. Cite:
DPMT / PAPT
===
No need to wait for a bug report. If you have a leaf package, remove it now.
If you're not a DD, do it in the git repo and ping Piotr.
beanstalkc was team leaf package without reverse {build-,}depends.
- X-Debbugs-Cc beansta...@packages.debian.org at bug report time,
>as finding out at the time of *removal* is arguably too late.
>
yes, this make sense.
Thanks.
--
Best regards
Ondřej Nový
Re: Bug#934398: RM: beanstalkc -- ROM; no Python 3 subpackage and no reverse deps
[Cc-ing debian-python] Hi Andrey, On 21:53 Sat 10 Aug , Andrey Rahmatullin wrote: > Package: ftp.debian.org > Severity: normal > > The code seems to support Python 3 but there is no subpackage. > > Reverse deps checked by dak rm -Rnb python-beanstalkc beanstalkc is used by beanstalkd's DEP-8 tests, which as a consequence have just been broken. The fact that dak doesn't care about autopkgtests makes `dak rm -Rnb` especially tricky and we shouldn't rely on just that to get an idea whether a package can be safely removed or not. It would be nice if dak had a notion of "Test-Depends" of course, but I don't think this information exists in the archive's metadata currently. While I understand the urge to get Python 2 out of bullseye as early as possible, I don't feel happy about how this particular case was handled, and I notice that it is not in agreement with what was posted on debian-python[1]. In all honesty and leaving [1] aside, I would very much have preferred if you had done one of the following instead: - Open an RC bug on the package to add Python-3 support in the first place, which would have given me more time to react and at least spare me writing this e-mail and filing for an ITP in the middle of August - X-Debbugs-Cc beansta...@packages.debian.org at bug report time, as finding out at the time of *removal* is arguably too late. Please keep these in mind before filing for future removals. Regards, Apollon [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2019/07/msg00080.html
