On Sat, 07 Mar 2020 17:28:53 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> dev-python/fedmsg
Just to buck the trend: Thanks.
When I saw the PR for this with my name in it (due to comaint), I
initially reacted and was going to oppose this removal.
But, well, I thought about it, and the reason this was here in
On Sat, 2020-03-07 at 22:22 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Surely, you can claim we could just drop them to maintainer-needed.
> > What problem does that solve? The package would still miss 3.7 support.
> > Users will still suffer when we
> On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Michał Górny wrote:
> Surely, you can claim we could just drop them to maintainer-needed.
> What problem does that solve? The package would still miss 3.7 support.
> Users will still suffer when we switch the default (if they have any
> users, that is). We would still
On Samstag, 7. März 2020 21:54:39 CET Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> I don't say that it isn't a problem that pyt...@gentoo.org became
> maintainer of thousands of package the project never wanted. I don't
> have a solution for that problem but I would suggest to start with a
> honest mask like
>
>
Hi,
www-apps/nikola was now moved away from python project and unmasked.
For reference, www-apps/nikola is heavily in use by the Gentoo e.V. in
Germany (surprising when you watch git log, not?). Gentoo e.V. is also
running Gentoo stable and Python 3.6 is the current stable version.
Python 3.7
On Sat, 2020-03-07 at 12:26 -0800, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 12:17 PM Jonas Stein wrote:
> > On 07/03/2020 19.27, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > Just the ebuild being outdated doesn't sound like a sufficient reason
> > >
On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 12:17 PM Jonas Stein wrote:
>
> On 07/03/2020 19.27, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >> On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> >>> Just the ebuild being outdated doesn't sound like a sufficient reason
> >>> for removal of a package, at least not for those packages that
On 07/03/2020 19.27, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Michał Górny wrote:
>
>>> Just the ebuild being outdated doesn't sound like a sufficient reason
>>> for removal of a package, at least not for those packages that install
>>> applications for the end user.
>
>> The list is
On Sat, 2020-03-07 at 20:21 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Matt Turner wrote:
> > > > The list is almost exclusively about dev-python/, i.e. packages that
> > > > do not install end-user applications but Python modules.
> > >
> > > Like www-apps/nikola, for example?
On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 11:21 AM Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Matt Turner wrote:
>
> >> > The list is almost exclusively about dev-python/, i.e. packages that
> >> > do not install end-user applications but Python modules.
> >>
> >> Like www-apps/nikola, for example?
>
> >
> On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Matt Turner wrote:
>> > The list is almost exclusively about dev-python/, i.e. packages that
>> > do not install end-user applications but Python modules.
>>
>> Like www-apps/nikola, for example?
> This is not a productive way to communicate.
The point is that
On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 10:27 AM Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> >> Just the ebuild being outdated doesn't sound like a sufficient reason
> >> for removal of a package, at least not for those packages that install
> >> applications for the end user.
>
>
> On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Michał Górny wrote:
>> Just the ebuild being outdated doesn't sound like a sufficient reason
>> for removal of a package, at least not for those packages that install
>> applications for the end user.
> The list is almost exclusively about dev-python/, i.e. packages
On Sat, 2020-03-07 at 18:49 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Ebuilds. 183 of them. One is stuck on py2 but is included as only
> > revdep.
>
> Just the ebuild being outdated doesn't sound like a sufficient reason
> for removal of a package,
On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 9:57 AM Andreas Sturmlechner
wrote:
> On Samstag, 7. März 2020 18:49:25 CET Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > Just the ebuild being outdated doesn't sound like a sufficient reason
> > for removal of a package, at least not for those packages that install
> > applications for the
On Samstag, 7. März 2020 18:49:25 CET Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Just the ebuild being outdated doesn't sound like a sufficient reason
> for removal of a package, at least not for those packages that install
> applications for the end user.
They are python packages and as such they block cleanup of
> On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Michał Górny wrote:
> Ebuilds. 183 of them. One is stuck on py2 but is included as only
> revdep.
Just the ebuild being outdated doesn't sound like a sufficient reason
for removal of a package, at least not for those packages that install
applications for the end
On Sat, 2020-03-07 at 18:06 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Michał Górny wrote:
> > # Michał Górny (2020-03-07)
> > # The following packages are stuck on Python 3.6, and have no reverse
> > # dependencies. Please let the Python team know if you find some
> > # of
> On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Michał Górny wrote:
> # Michał Górny (2020-03-07)
> # The following packages are stuck on Python 3.6, and have no reverse
> # dependencies. Please let the Python team know if you find some
> # of them still useful.
> # Removal in 30 days. Bug #711808.
Does this mean
# Michał Górny (2020-03-07)
# The following packages are stuck on Python 3.6, and have no reverse
# dependencies. Please let the Python team know if you find some
# of them still useful.
# Removal in 30 days. Bug #711808.
dev-python/CacheControl
dev-python/ImageHash
dev-python/ReParser
20 matches
Mail list logo
