Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2020-01-13 Thread Joshua Kinard
On 1/13/2020 01:52, Michał Górny wrote: > On Sun, 2020-01-12 at 17:07 -0500, Joshua Kinard wrote: [snip] > Joshua, > > I understand that you don't do much Python ebuild work, or probably > Python development in general. I understand that you may feel like you > need more time with Python 2.

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2020-01-12 Thread Andreas Sturmlechner
On Montag, 13. Januar 2020 01:44:55 CET Joshua Kinard wrote: > I am working now to remove the remaining py2 packages > from my systems and then rebuild the python packages to only handle py3. Here's a suggestion: Skim through the packages on your system that are py27- only and look them up

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2020-01-12 Thread Michał Górny
On Sun, 2020-01-12 at 17:07 -0500, Joshua Kinard wrote: > I'm late to the party as usual. Seems upstream plans a final 2.7.18 > security update in April of 2020, then they will consider the 2.7 branch > EOL. They say most of these updates were done in 2019, and so are still > technically

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2020-01-12 Thread Joshua Kinard
On 1/12/2020 19:21, William Hubbs wrote: > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:17:36AM +0100, David Seifert wrote: >> On Sun, 2020-01-12 at 17:55 -0500, Joshua Kinard wrote: >>> On 1/12/2020 17:46, David Seifert wrote: On Sun, 2020-01-12 at 17:43 -0500, Joshua Kinard wrote: > On 1/12/2020 17:32,

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2020-01-12 Thread William Hubbs
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:17:36AM +0100, David Seifert wrote: > On Sun, 2020-01-12 at 17:55 -0500, Joshua Kinard wrote: > > On 1/12/2020 17:46, David Seifert wrote: > > > On Sun, 2020-01-12 at 17:43 -0500, Joshua Kinard wrote: > > > > On 1/12/2020 17:32, Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: > > > > > On

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2020-01-12 Thread David Seifert
On Sun, 2020-01-12 at 17:55 -0500, Joshua Kinard wrote: > On 1/12/2020 17:46, David Seifert wrote: > > On Sun, 2020-01-12 at 17:43 -0500, Joshua Kinard wrote: > > > On 1/12/2020 17:32, Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: > > > > On Sonntag, 12. Januar 2020 23:07:24 CET Joshua Kinard wrote: > > > > > It

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2020-01-12 Thread Joshua Kinard
On 1/12/2020 17:46, David Seifert wrote: > On Sun, 2020-01-12 at 17:43 -0500, Joshua Kinard wrote: >> On 1/12/2020 17:32, Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: >>> On Sonntag, 12. Januar 2020 23:07:24 CET Joshua Kinard wrote: It might be worthwhile to treat the removal of Python-2.7 from the tree

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2020-01-12 Thread David Seifert
On Sun, 2020-01-12 at 17:43 -0500, Joshua Kinard wrote: > On 1/12/2020 17:32, Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: > > On Sonntag, 12. Januar 2020 23:07:24 CET Joshua Kinard wrote: > > > It might be worthwhile to treat the removal of Python-2.7 from > > > the tree in > > > the same manner as an EAPI

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2020-01-12 Thread Joshua Kinard
On 1/12/2020 17:32, Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: > On Sonntag, 12. Januar 2020 23:07:24 CET Joshua Kinard wrote: >> It might be worthwhile to treat the removal of Python-2.7 from the tree in >> the same manner as an EAPI deprecation and removal, given how ingrained it >> is due to its longevity.

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2020-01-12 Thread Andreas Sturmlechner
On Sonntag, 12. Januar 2020 23:07:24 CET Joshua Kinard wrote: > It might be worthwhile to treat the removal of Python-2.7 from the tree in > the same manner as an EAPI deprecation and removal, given how ingrained it > is due to its longevity. That will minimize the whiplash-effect of emerge >

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2020-01-12 Thread Joshua Kinard
On 1/12/2020 17:17, David Seifert wrote: > On Sun, 2020-01-12 at 17:07 -0500, Joshua Kinard wrote: >> On 12/5/2019 09:24, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 8:59 AM Jason A. Donenfeld >>> wrote: It's quite another to mask random packages that have USE flags to optionally

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2020-01-12 Thread David Seifert
On Sun, 2020-01-12 at 17:07 -0500, Joshua Kinard wrote: > On 12/5/2019 09:24, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 8:59 AM Jason A. Donenfeld > > wrote: > > > It's quite another to mask random packages that have USE flags to > > > optionally support whatever python 2.7 library. If

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2020-01-12 Thread Joshua Kinard
On 12/5/2019 09:24, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 8:59 AM Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: >> >> It's quite another to mask random packages that have USE flags to >> optionally support whatever python 2.7 library. If you're going to >> last rites these, talk with the maintainer first, and

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-08 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 21:28 +0100, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > On 2019-12-06 21:10, Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: > > Just so we're on the same page, a recent example of what some > > people > > suggesting to keep py27 ad nauseam are asking users to deal with: > > [...] > > WARNING: One or more

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-07 Thread Kent Fredric
On Fri, 06 Dec 2019 21:10:12 +0100 Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: > Calculating dependencies... done! > > Total: 0 packages, Size of downloads: 0 KiB > > WARNING: One or more updates/rebuilds have been skipped due to a > dependency conflict: > > dev-python/sphinx:0 > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-06 Thread Michael 'veremitz' Everitt
On 06/12/19 20:10, Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: > On Friday, 6 December 2019 20:47:31 CET Thomas Deutschmann wrote: >> On 2019-12-06 17:44, Mike Gilbert wrote: >>> 1. Keep the old version installed. >>> 2. Emit a confusing error message to the user since the use-dependency >>> on

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-06 Thread Thomas Deutschmann
On 2019-12-06 21:10, Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: > Just so we're on the same page, a recent example of what some people > suggesting to keep py27 ad nauseam are asking users to deal with: > [...] > WARNING: One or more updates/rebuilds have been skipped due to a dependency > conflict: Yes, like

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-06 Thread Andreas Sturmlechner
On Friday, 6 December 2019 20:47:31 CET Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > On 2019-12-06 17:44, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > 1. Keep the old version installed. > > 2. Emit a confusing error message to the user since the use-dependency > > on dev-python/example[python_targets_python2_7] cannot be resolved > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-06 Thread Thomas Deutschmann
On 2019-12-06 17:44, Mike Gilbert wrote: > That's going to cause a very confusing user-experience due to > conflicting PYTHON_TARGETS values on the various packages. It's also > going to cause users to have old/unsupported/buggy versions of various > random python packages depending on what set of

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-06 Thread Mike Gilbert
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:12 AM Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > > On 2019-12-06 16:48, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > It's not quite so simple as you make it sound. There really isn't a > > viable way to defer removal of python2-only packages until we remove > > dev-lang/python:2.7. > > > > An increasing

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-06 Thread Thomas Deutschmann
On 2019-12-06 17:35, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > I don't see anything wrong with the idea of p.masking it in case it > could be causing problems for others (such as py2). Sure, in *case* it *is* causing problems. ACK. But so far nobody was able to provide any reasons. That's the thing which drives me

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-06 Thread Mart Raudsepp
Ühel kenal päeval, R, 06.12.2019 kell 14:06, kirjutas Thomas Deutschmann: > Since when is it acceptable for anyone to remove packages (the > package.mask entry clearly says that this package is scheduled for > removal and suspecting that any *user* will step and contact p-m for > example is naive)

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-06 Thread Thomas Deutschmann
On 2019-12-06 16:48, Mike Gilbert wrote: > It's not quite so simple as you make it sound. There really isn't a > viable way to defer removal of python2-only packages until we remove > dev-lang/python:2.7. > > An increasing number of python packages are dropping support for > python2 when upstream

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-06 Thread Mike Gilbert
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 8:52 AM Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 8:06 AM Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > > > > Sure, if packages don't work anymore or are blocking something, we will > > start last-rite process. But for the sabnzbd example (I haven't looked > > closely on any other

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-06 Thread Rich Freeman
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 8:06 AM Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > > Sure, if packages don't work anymore or are blocking something, we will > start last-rite process. But for the sabnzbd example (I haven't looked > closely on any other package from that list) there isn't anything > blocking and it's a

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-06 Thread Thomas Deutschmann
Hi, On 2019-12-06 09:11, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > I don't think anyone can have a valid problem with package.mask of some > of the things mentioned (sabnzbd, abcde, etc), because they were indeed > maintainer-needed or sound@ (which David is part of, and is known > crickets territory) or whatnot.

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-06 Thread David Seifert
On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 10:11 +0200, Mart Raudsepp wrote: > Ühel kenal päeval, N, 05.12.2019 kell 23:23, kirjutas David Seifert: > > When we started removing Qt4, tons of code still used it. To put > > things > > in perspective: > > > > grep -rl 'IUSE.*python_targets_python2_7' > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-06 Thread Mart Raudsepp
Ühel kenal päeval, N, 05.12.2019 kell 23:23, kirjutas David Seifert: > When we started removing Qt4, tons of code still used it. To put > things > in perspective: > > grep -rl 'IUSE.*python_targets_python2_7' /usr/portage/metadata/md5- > cache/ | wc -l > > gives me 7070 ebuilds currently. 7070

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-05 Thread Kent Fredric
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 09:40:50 -0500 Aaron Bauman wrote: > Wonderful response, William. Just because its EOL, doesn't mean it stops working. It just means *support* for defects and security problems is dropped. It doesn't prevent us from: a) vendor patching bugs b) vendor patching security

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 5:23 PM David Seifert wrote: > > And that's exactly the straw-man argument I've been making. You can > always come up with an excuse to delay action on python 2, because > "someone, somewhere, will maintain it". Hey, if somebody actually does want to maintain it I don't

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-05 Thread David Seifert
On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 21:56 +0100, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > On 2019-12-05 21:31, David Seifert wrote: > > > On another topic, I'd prefer for python 2.7 not to be removed > > > from > > > gentoo. Tons of code still uses it. > > > > > Sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you on this. > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-05 Thread Thomas Deutschmann
On 2019-12-05 21:31, David Seifert wrote: >> On another topic, I'd prefer for python 2.7 not to be removed from >> gentoo. Tons of code still uses it. >> > Sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you on this. > > We're removing Java too from Gentoo (more implicitly than explicitly), > because the

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-05 Thread David Seifert
On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 14:59 +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 2:56 PM Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 8:42 AM Jason A. Donenfeld > > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Aaron has marked tons of important and useful Python 2.7 packages > > > for removal: > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-05 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
How about adding yourself as maintainer then? :) Am Donnerstag, 5. Dezember 2019, 14:42:59 CET schrieb Jason A. Donenfeld: > Hi, > > Aaron has marked tons of important and useful Python 2.7 packages for > removal: > > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=d85e166dd999c354a5346fb

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-05 Thread Aaron Bauman
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 09:34:16AM -0500, William Breathitt Gray wrote: > On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 09:24:26AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 8:59 AM Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > > > > > It's quite another to mask random packages that have USE flags to > > > optionally

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-05 Thread Aaron Bauman
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 02:42:59PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > Hi, > > Aaron has marked tons of important and useful Python 2.7 packages for removal: > > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=d85e166dd999c354a5346fbb5768cc6f38ac > > There are quite a few useful

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-05 Thread William Breathitt Gray
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 09:24:26AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 8:59 AM Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > > > It's quite another to mask random packages that have USE flags to > > optionally support whatever python 2.7 library. If you're going to > > last rites these, talk with

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 8:59 AM Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > It's quite another to mask random packages that have USE flags to > optionally support whatever python 2.7 library. If you're going to > last rites these, talk with the maintainer first, and only then, send > emails one at a time. Doing

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-05 Thread Jason A. Donenfeld
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 2:56 PM Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 8:42 AM Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Aaron has marked tons of important and useful Python 2.7 packages for > > removal: > > > > Can we not do this prematurely? I've revered this commit until such a >

Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-05 Thread Rich Freeman
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 8:42 AM Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > > Hi, > > Aaron has marked tons of important and useful Python 2.7 packages for removal: > > Can we not do this prematurely? I've revered this commit until such a > thing an be appropriately agreed upon. Might make sense to wait to mask

[gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade

2019-12-05 Thread Jason A. Donenfeld
Hi, Aaron has marked tons of important and useful Python 2.7 packages for removal: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=d85e166dd999c354a5346fbb5768cc6f38ac There are quite a few useful packages in here. Can we not do this prematurely? I've revered this commit until such a