Re: Bug#936604: getmail: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

2020-02-19 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
On Wed 2019-11-13 15:31:04 +0100, Iustin Pop wrote:
> On 2019-11-13 15:06:54, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 11/12/19 4:37 PM, Osamu Aoki wrote:
>> > The related binary packages are available in 2 binary names (depending on 
>> > release)
>> >  getmail4 (version=4,5) popcon installed ~2000
>> >  getmail  (version=3,5) popcon installed ~1000
>> > 
>> > https://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=getmail%20getmail4_installed=on_legend=on_ticks=on_fmt=%25Y-%25m=1
>> > 
>> > I think this qualifies for "py2keep".
>> 
>> IMO, this qualifies for RM-RoM. getmail is an alternative to fetchmail,
>> which is still available in Debian (and with 4 times the number of
>> installed package in popcon...). So I see no reason to keep getmail
>> then. Maybe tell this to upstream, and they may think another time.
>
> Uh, no. Functionality-wise, they're quite different. getmail is (AFAIK)
> the only tool that works for gmail with ASPs disabled (i.e. with OAUTH).
>
> Heck, I'd be very willing to maintain Py3 patches myself, because I need
> this tool.

Thanks for the clarification about what you need from this tool.  I
stopped using getmail several months ago, and i'm in the process of
taking my name out of the uploaders list.  Sorry to bail on it, Osamu!
I just don't feel write being named as responsible for it when i no
longer even have python2 on many systems that i care about.

Upstream appears to indicate that getmail for python3 is likely to be a
nearly complete rewrite.

For myself, i've been using the very simple imap-dl (now in mailscripts
0.18, i'm the main author, and Sean Whitton is a very capable
maintainer).  But imap-dl doesn't have the OAUTH mechanism for gmail
built in.  If you wanted to port that mechanism into imap-dl, i'd be
happy to review it, though!

Regards,

  --dkg


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: Bug#936604: getmail: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

2019-11-13 Thread Iustin Pop
On 2019-11-14 00:24:15, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 03:31:04PM +0100, Iustin Pop wrote:
> > On 2019-11-13 15:06:54, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > > On 11/12/19 4:37 PM, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > > > The related binary packages are available in 2 binary names (depending 
> > > > on release)
> > > >  getmail4 (version=4,5) popcon installed ~2000
> > > >  getmail  (version=3,5) popcon installed ~1000
> > > >
> > > > https://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=getmail%20getmail4_installed=on_legend=on_ticks=on_fmt=%25Y-%25m=1
> > > >
> > > > I think this qualifies for "py2keep".
> > >
> > > IMO, this qualifies for RM-RoM. getmail is an alternative to fetchmail,
> > > which is still available in Debian (and with 4 times the number of
> > > installed package in popcon...). So I see no reason to keep getmail
> > > then. Maybe tell this to upstream, and they may think another time.
> >
> > Uh, no. Functionality-wise, they're quite different. getmail is (AFAIK)
> > the only tool that works for gmail with ASPs disabled (i.e. with OAUTH).
> >
> > Heck, I'd be very willing to maintain Py3 patches myself, because I need
> > this tool.
> 
> Please take over packaging from me then.  You are welcome.

I would gladly help with co-maintenance, but taking over packaging would
be my least preferred option.

Thanksfully, it seems the upstream is willing to move to Python 3, so I
think situation is pretty good, actually.

thank you!



Re: Bug#936604: getmail: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

2019-11-13 Thread Osamu Aoki
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 03:31:04PM +0100, Iustin Pop wrote:
> On 2019-11-13 15:06:54, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > On 11/12/19 4:37 PM, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > > The related binary packages are available in 2 binary names (depending on 
> > > release)
> > >  getmail4 (version=4,5) popcon installed ~2000
> > >  getmail  (version=3,5) popcon installed ~1000
> > >
> > > https://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=getmail%20getmail4_installed=on_legend=on_ticks=on_fmt=%25Y-%25m=1
> > >
> > > I think this qualifies for "py2keep".
> >
> > IMO, this qualifies for RM-RoM. getmail is an alternative to fetchmail,
> > which is still available in Debian (and with 4 times the number of
> > installed package in popcon...). So I see no reason to keep getmail
> > then. Maybe tell this to upstream, and they may think another time.
>
> Uh, no. Functionality-wise, they're quite different. getmail is (AFAIK)
> the only tool that works for gmail with ASPs disabled (i.e. with OAUTH).
>
> Heck, I'd be very willing to maintain Py3 patches myself, because I need
> this tool.

Please take over packaging from me then.  You are welcome.

Osamu



Re: Bug#936604: getmail: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

2019-11-13 Thread Osamu Aoki
Hi,

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 09:27:08AM +0100, Ondrej Novy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> út 12. 11. 2019 v 16:37 odesílatel Osamu Aoki  napsal:
>
> Upstream is active and prides to keep python 2.5 compatibility code in
> it ... (Not just 2.7).  I (Osamu Aoki ) and dkg even
> made some effort to support both 2 and 3 but the idea was rejected by
> upstream in 2018.
>
>
> that's odd :/
>
>
> I think this qualifies for "py2keep".
>
>
> i don't think so. Imho is better to support Py3 in Debian with our patches.

dkj: Do you?  (Not me)

> If Debian and Fedora demonstrate its python3 removal, I am sure the
> upstream may change his thought.  If you have some progress indicator,
> that can be used to convince getmail upstream.  I or dkg need a solid
> fact to restart conversation with the upstream.
>
>
> yes, we have! :)
>
> http://sandrotosi.me/debian/py2removal/py2removal_progress.png
>
> Almost half of work is done in ~ 3 months.

This is interesting.  I will inform upstream about this progress.

But how much od current ~1800 packages fall into high popcon and build
dependency category.   Are these all high pop conpackages?

Osamu



Re: Bug#936604: getmail: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

2019-11-13 Thread Osamu Aoki
Hi,

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 04:57:17PM +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:37:27AM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Upstream is active and prides to keep python 2.5 compatibility code in
> > it ... (Not just 2.7).  I (Osamu Aoki ) and dkg even
> > made some effort to support both 2 and 3 but the idea was rejected by
> > upstream in 2018.  (Then we both lost motivation since upstream will not
> > include such code in near future)
> >   https://marc.info/?l=getmail=151542515929707=2
> >
> > The upstream is somehow convinced that python2 will be there for some
> > time (Year ~2020 and later).
> >   https://marc.info/?l=getmail=151542154628352=2
>
> uh. meh.
>
> I haven't looked at the code, but if you made the effort, how improbable
> would it be for you to just keep the patches for py3 support yourself in
> the packaging for the time being?

Neither of us got to compete patches to be accepted by the upstream or
fully functioning code for all versions upstream wanted to support, if I
recall correctly.

Besides, patches applied were extensive.  Considering security
implication, not accepted by upstream was the killer.  The upstream
updates this package when security concerns are raised.

Anyway, if Debian compiles a transition statistics of python3 migration,
we can point upstream to it.

Do we have stat of number of packages:
 A) Packages using python3
 B) Packages using python2 but python3 version is also available.
 C) Packages using python2 but python3 version is not available and
it is required by standard package building
 D) Packages using python2 but python3 version is not available and
it is not required by standard package building,
but it has high popcon over 1000.

If "C" portion is getting less than 1% and "D" portion is getting 1% of
"A" portion, I guess upstream may change mind.

If we know how Fedora has done, that may help convince upstream.

Regards,

Osamu