On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 20:57, Giovanni Mascellani <g...@debian.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > Il 05/12/19 17:55, Dimitri John Ledkov ha scritto: > > In principal I agree, in practice the only broken app today is ledger, > > which should have by now uploaded without a python bridge enabled; or > > build with python3 bridge as now available from upstream master (ported > > by me after this issue was filed / escalated). > > Thanks for working on ledger, but it is not the only affected > application. At least mirage is affected too. Are you sure there are not > others? How? >
mirage is RC buggy, not in testing, and should also be removed from unstable too. Are you seriously suggesting to keep RC buggy app working in unstable for extra couple of weeks? It's to be slaughtered with the rest of python2 apps and modules from unstable. The only way to keep mirage available is to port it to python3 and python3-gir. > > And no, unstable is not supported and frequently has uninstallable > > packages, multiple known regressions, RC bugs, and automated autopkgtest > > regressions. One should only dist-upgrade unstable packages they use, if > > they are ok with the RC bugs and autopkgtest regressions automatically > > identified in the builds anyway. Thus no, I will not be making > > incremental uploads, to temporarily unbreak unstable users, using hacks > > which are not the way we intend to ship in testing later as that is > > added churn and drag on the development (ie. port/rebuild ledger in this > > case). > > I don't agree. I ordinarily use unstable and usually everything runs > fine. There are breakages every now and then, and I know that if > unstable breaks I keep the pieces. But this does not mean that one > should do that on purpose. There can be situations in which this is > unavoidable, but clearly this is not one of those: there is not harm in > keeping Python 2 enabled as long as users are still using it. > Huh, no. The whole purpose of python2 removal is to remove all python2 apps and modules from unstable. They will not continue to work. We will only ship python2.7 itself for one more stable cycle, without any apps or modules, and then it too will be removed from unstable. > Therefore I will upload a new version of boost1.67 temporarily reverting > your patch. By the way, I don't think that boost1.67 will go in bullseye > anyway: I hope to get rid of it well before that. So the point here is > not getting the package in shape for the release; it is just avoid > making the life of unstable's users unnecessarily complicated. > Go for it, it is not uncommon for us to ship multiple boost releases. And e.g. boost1.62 is still in unstable, but I did file removal bug for it. Also why does one need to upload boost1.67 to unstable, if the one from testing still works with ledger/mirage/etc? > Also, I hope to finish working on 1.71 as soon as possible, so that we > can start that migration. But 1.71 for sure will not have python2 bindings enabled. Thus re-enabling python2 in boost is a stopgap until December 18th when those reverse-deps will be removed from testing anyway. -- Regards, Dimitri.
