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. Bu
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 upstre
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 sticking
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, An
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 So
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 mig
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 i
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 depreca
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. Th
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
> comp
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 suppo
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 you're
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
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 upda
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
>
> (dev-python/sphinx-2.0.1
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 dev-python/example[
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
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
> > w
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
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 num
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
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)
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
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 packa
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 wo
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.
I
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'
> > /usr/portage/meta
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 is
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 issu
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 see
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.
> >
> > We
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 Ma
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:
> > >
> >
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
>
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 suppor
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 packages
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
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
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
> >
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 t
40 matches
Mail list logo
