I would be ok to reintroduce boost-python2.7 in experimental only. On Sat, 4 Jan 2020, 16:16 Dimitri John Ledkov, <dimitri.led...@surgut.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 4 Jan 2020, 06:45 Giovanni Mascellani, <g...@debian.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Il 03/01/20 22:07, Adrian Bunk ha scritto: >> > Dimitri already agreed in a private discussion that this change was >> bogus. >> > >> > > Hm?! I acknowledge it is an Abi Break, but it was intentional. We want to > both drop python2 and drop boost1.67 from Sid and testing. > > Everything that uses or provides boost-python2.7 is RC in both testing and > unstable. > > Thus yeah, I do object to reintroducing python2 support in any boost > packages. > > Doing that will simply block 1.71 transition, and 1.67 removal. > > Python2 is dead :-) > > > Are there any objections against an NMU reverting the bogus Python 2 >> > removal in boost1.67? >> >> Totally agree that there is no reason to remote Python 2 support from >> boost1.67. Please do the NMU. >> >> >> Giovanni. >> -- >> Giovanni Mascellani <g.mascell...@gmail.com> >> Postdoc researcher - Université Libre de Bruxelles >> >>
