Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep
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 the first place was to look after some future potential work with release-monitoring that had stalled and never come to fruition. So yes, its removal was satisfactory. If the "work with release-monitoring" folk ever get around to actually needing this, we can always reinstate it then anyway. pgpc1y3bKH_ZG.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep
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 switch the default (if they have any > > users, that is). We would still have to last rite them when 3.6 is > > gone. What's the gain? > > Right, let's talk about m-needed. Over 2000 packages already and still > > growing. What message does *that* send to the users? > > Sorry, but where have I suggested to drop these packages to m-n? > > > How about the following message: the difference between Gentoo > > and Debian stable is that Gentoo doesn't have the 'b'. > > Finally, what message does it send to our users when developers keep > > picking up fights like this? You seem to disagree with my work > > on Gentoo, and the only solution you can come up is publicly shaming me? > > This isn't 'let's discuss a better solution' kind of mail, this is > > 'justify yourself before me, you puny developer, how dare you do things > > I don't like'. > > This is neither a fight nor a personal issue. Also, please don't put > words in my mouth that I haven't said and never intended to say. > > Ulrich In general, I don't the see the point of this thread. Python requires explicit implementation enabling, and unless you're willing to help test py3.7 on py3.6- only packages, complaining about masking packages gets us absolutely nowhere. Propose actual solutions and step in to help and bump packages. Walk the walk, don't just talk the talk.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep
> 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 have to last rite them when 3.6 is > gone. What's the gain? > Right, let's talk about m-needed. Over 2000 packages already and still > growing. What message does *that* send to the users? Sorry, but where have I suggested to drop these packages to m-n? > How about the following message: the difference between Gentoo > and Debian stable is that Gentoo doesn't have the 'b'. > Finally, what message does it send to our users when developers keep > picking up fights like this? You seem to disagree with my work > on Gentoo, and the only solution you can come up is publicly shaming me? > This isn't 'let's discuss a better solution' kind of mail, this is > 'justify yourself before me, you puny developer, how dare you do things > I don't like'. This is neither a fight nor a personal issue. Also, please don't put words in my mouth that I haven't said and never intended to say. Ulrich signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep
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 > > > Packages mask for removal because Python project no longer > > wants to maintain these packages You mean as opposed to what the mask message said right there: "Please let the Python team know if you find some of them still useful." Semantics. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep
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 will become the successor but isn't yet... so please calm down regarding "But it doesn't support Py 3.7+ yet". We will add that support in future when time permits. The main problem is that Python project has decided to ignore common rules and established a new disruptive way to tackle current problems. 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 > Packages mask for removal because Python project no longer > wants to maintain these packages This is without any judgment. It's just a fact. But please stop spreading FUD that these packages are blocking, outdated or not well maintained. So if Python project has decided to go the disruptive road (yes, I am aware that we don't have a better mechanism like setting a mask to get attention), you have to deal with the fact that this is disruptive and that not everyone like that. But please, nobody is publicly shaming anyone. If you play that card, don't wonder that people will stop talking. Don't read too much into everything. -- Regards, Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep
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 > > > > > 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 that > > > > do not install end-user applications but Python modules. > > > > > > Like www-apps/nikola, for example? > > > > > > > Nikola is actively maintained and was recently updated. > > It works fine and has many users. > > > > Did you look into that package before hard masking? > > I see no problems with this package. > > https://github.com/getnikola/nikola/blob/master/setup.py > > > > Please undo the masking of fully working packages. > > Christ guys. Just add python 3.7 support and unmask it. ...and 3.8, please, so we don't have to go back here a year from now. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep
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 install > >>> applications for the end user. > > > >> 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? > > > > Nikola is actively maintained and was recently updated. > It works fine and has many users. > > Did you look into that package before hard masking? > I see no problems with this package. > https://github.com/getnikola/nikola/blob/master/setup.py > > Please undo the masking of fully working packages. Christ guys. Just add python 3.7 support and unmask it.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep
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 almost exclusively about dev-python/, i.e. packages that >> do not install end-user applications but Python modules. > > Like www-apps/nikola, for example? > Nikola is actively maintained and was recently updated. It works fine and has many users. Did you look into that package before hard masking? I see no problems with this package. https://github.com/getnikola/nikola/blob/master/setup.py Please undo the masking of fully working packages. -- Best, Jonas signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep
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? > > This is not a productive way to communicate. > > The point is that packages that are perfectly working, actively > maintained upstream (and the ebuild version bumped in the last month) > are being last-rited all of a sudden. > > What message does that send to users about the suitability of Gentoo > for usage in a production environment? What message does send the fact that Gentoo is defaulting to an unmaintained (upstream) version of Python and for years have problems moving forward? Switching to 3.6 was a massacre already, and users felt it. Surely, some people will claim that I'm removing 'perfectly working, blah blah blah' packages. Completely ignoring the fact that the mask explicitly asks *which* packages are worth keeping. But some people will simply realize that I'm trying to make Python in Gentoo sustainable again. It's easy to complain. It's hard to come up with good solutions. The current rough count for packages missing 3.7 support is 1057. How many of them are *you* willing to port? Is it a crime that we're trying to remove ~200 packages from that list? 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 have to last rite them when 3.6 is gone. What's the gain? Right, let's talk about m-needed. Over 2000 packages already and still growing. What message does *that* send to the users? How about the following message: the difference between Gentoo and Debian stable is that Gentoo doesn't have the 'b'. Finally, what message does it send to our users when developers keep picking up fights like this? You seem to disagree with my work on Gentoo, and the only solution you can come up is publicly shaming me? This isn't 'let's discuss a better solution' kind of mail, this is 'justify yourself before me, you puny developer, how dare you do things I don't like'. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep
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? > > > This is not a productive way to communicate. > > The point is that packages that are perfectly working, actively > maintained upstream (and the ebuild version bumped in the last month) > are being last-rited all of a sudden. > > What message does that send to users about the suitability of Gentoo > for usage in a production environment? I would hope that it would communicate that the Gentoo developers doing the maintenance have too many packages to maintain and could use some help from those interested! That is, instead of getting a bunch of complaints.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep
> 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 packages that are perfectly working, actively maintained upstream (and the ebuild version bumped in the last month) are being last-rited all of a sudden. What message does that send to users about the suitability of Gentoo for usage in a production environment? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep
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. > > > 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.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep
> 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 that > do not install end-user applications but Python modules. Like www-apps/nikola, for example? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep
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, at least not for those packages that install > applications for the end user. The list is almost exclusively about dev-python/, i.e. packages that do not install end-user applications but Python modules. > > But that's by no means all ebuilds like that, just a subset Python > > team doesn't see much of a point maintaining. > > Why had they been added then, in the first place? > You should ask the person who added them. Some of them probably used to have revdeps in the past but lost them (either because they switched to other deps or were removed). Some of them were added because somebody used it at some point. Some of them were added because someone thought it would be great idea to package a lot of Python modules because we can. Some of these someones have retired since. Some left the Python team. Some weren't ever part of it yet dumped packages on us. I could go on like this for much longer but what's the purpose? The point is, python@ has a lot of packages, we can't maintain them all. These packages weren't really maintained for at least a few months, so dropping them lets us focus on packages that do have dependencies or otherwise seem more useful. I mean, surely, we can try to test ~300 packages on py3.7 just to discover half of them were added without tests, large number have failing tests, some have silly mistakes... -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep
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 end user. > > They are python packages and as such they block cleanup of old python > versions. Someone has to actually put effort into each of them to keep > them > alive. > I think the idea is that this is all implicit in the notification, rather than being explicit, which muddles the messaging. I *suspect* that py3.6 will get dropped eventually as its no longer developed (but is security supported by upstream through 2021.) If we just came out and said "Hey we plan on dropping python-3.6 in X[0] months, here are a bunch of packages on py-3.6, we need to either drop them or update them" the conversation would be slightly different. I also suspect the conversation did not go this way because then instead of discussing who would maintain these packages, we would be discussing "why python-3.6 should not be dropped until the last possible day in 2021" which sounds reminiscent of python2 ;) I think however, that we can do both. Python-3.6 will get removed eventually; there are dozens of packages that need help and I don't think it is incumbent on the python team to do all of the work, hence this thread notifying folks that "hey if you use these packages they will need help to stay around." [0] We could all argue over some value of X; but on another thread please ;p > > > > But that's by no means all ebuilds like that, just a subset Python > > > team doesn't see much of a point maintaining. > > > > Why had they been added then, in the first place? > > Packages get added by someone, then that someone does not care about them > anymore and they fall behind. Is that really news? > > People who see a need for some of those can pick them up as maintainers > after > all. > > Regards, > Andreas
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep
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 old python versions. Someone has to actually put effort into each of them to keep them alive. > > But that's by no means all ebuilds like that, just a subset Python > > team doesn't see much of a point maintaining. > > Why had they been added then, in the first place? Packages get added by someone, then that someone does not care about them anymore and they fall behind. Is that really news? People who see a need for some of those can pick them up as maintainers after all. Regards, Andreas signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep
> 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 user. > But that's by no means all ebuilds like that, just a subset Python > team doesn't see much of a point maintaining. Why had they been added then, in the first place? Ulrich signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep
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 them still useful. > > # Removal in 30 days. Bug #711808. > > Does this mean that only the ebuilds are "stuck on Python 3.6", or the > upstream packages? All 184 of them? > Ebuilds. 183 of them. One is stuck on py2 but is included as only revdep. But that's by no means all ebuilds like that, just a subset Python team doesn't see much of a point maintaining. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep
> 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 that only the ebuilds are "stuck on Python 3.6", or the upstream packages? All 184 of them? Please explain. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
