On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 22:03:29 +0100 Giovanni Mascellani <g...@debian.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Il 01/12/19 23:33, Dimitri John Ledkov ha scritto: > > All the broken packages, are RC buggy themselves already. Anything that > > is using py2 is RC buggy. > > I'm sorry, but this does not look like the way Python maintainers asked > to deal with reverse dependencies: from [1] it is clear that you should > not remove Python 2 support if you have reverse dependencies using it. > The right way is to keep Python 2 and make the rev dep's bug affect #936227. > > [1] https://wiki.debian.org/Python/2Removal > > People are using unstable. I agree with the principle that Python 2 > applications should disappear as soon as possible, but breaking things > randomly is not going to do any good. > > Please, if you see a mistake in my reasoning explain me, otherwise I > will re-enable Python 2 support for 1.67.0 in Debian (I have no idea > about policies in Ubuntu) until reverse dependencies are clean. > > Incidentally, it seems that ledger does not have any Python 2 removal > related bug. I would file one. >
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). It is unfortunate that python2 bridge is built and linked into ledger by default, even when unused. (i.e. people who don't care about python-bridge are broken) There is no class issue of any other debs. And ledger upload is pending, as discussed with ledger maintainer. Ledger needs to be fixed regardless, and is getting fixed shortly. I don't think it's worthwhile rebuilding boost with reintroduced python2 at this point. 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). Regards, Dimitri.
