On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 6:37 AM Adrian Bunk <b...@debian.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 09:20:31PM -0500, Sandro Tosi wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 6:51 AM Adrian Bunk <b...@debian.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 04:06:28PM -0500, Sandro Tosi wrote: > > > >... > > > > python-txsocksx -> foolscap -> tahoe-lafs > > > > > > > > both foolscap and tahoe-lafs were removed from testing, so to my > > > > script python-txsocksx appears as a leaf package (as its removal wont > > > > break already broken/RC packages not in testing). not sure what we > > > > want to do here, none of the 2 other packages will get fix anytime > > > > soon and may get removed from debian entirely at some point. > > > >... > > > > > > The latter statement is not true. > > > > > > Both tahoe-lafs and foolscap have substantial upstream activities > > > towards Python 3 porting, > > > > my statement says "none of the 2 other packages will get fix anytime > > soon and may get removed from debian entirely at some point" -- what > > do you find un-true about it? > > > > i did not say those projects python3 port is not being worked on, but > > i say that they are not close to finishing it, which includes both > > porting the code *and* testing it and finally release a version that > > has the python3 port. > > To me it looks likely to be finished in time for the bullseye freeze.
that'd be great, so they could be easily re-introduced in Debian once they are ready. > > for tahoe-lafs the effort is tracked at > > https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/milestone/Support%20Python%203 > > which is currently marked at 89% completed; it was marked to be > > completed by Dec 1, 2019, so they are 2 months behind their own > > schedule (again, no blaming, just stating facts) > >... > > You are pushing strongly for the removal of a package where upstream is "pushing strongly"? I opened a bug against a package that's not actively maintained upstream, waited a week (without any objection or reply), and then reassigned it to ftp.d.o. It may be quicker than usual Debian processes, but definitely not "strongly" > working hard on Python 3 porting which is already 89% completed. > (no blaming, just stating facts) i'm afraid you got facts mixed up: i asked for the removal of txsocksx, while it's tahoe-lafs port that's at 89% completion. Please also consider this: right now, txsocksx has no python3 support; so either the new port of tahoe-lafs to python3 has removed the dependency on txsocksx or they are gonna have to wait for a port to be available. In any case, txsocksx can be removed right now and reintroduced when ported to python3 (or even never, if that wont happen) > It has happened that a removal bug was filed for a Python2 using package > that was executed by the ftp team despite objection from the Debian > maintainer. > (again, no blaming, just stating facts) is this the case? according to PTS you're not part of the maintainers/uploaders for txsocksx, tahoe-lafs or foolscap, and to my knowledge none of them objected here. What am i missing? > For many maintainers the approaching bullseye freeze is the deadline > when they get all their packages into shape. Some people have enough > spare time to work on Debian continuously, others don't. and that's why there are people helping out, what's your point here? > Many upstream developers also have priorities that can make it a > challenge to find the time to do a proper conversion to Python 3, and > made it lower priority when the conversion didn't bring any benefits. > (again, no blaming, just stating facts) right, but according to https://www.python.org/doc/sunset-python-2/ there has been plenty of time to migrate to python3, so i do understand the human nature to procrastinate until the very last moment (i do that all the time!) but that moment is now. It's also a good indication if that upstream project is still maintained or not, which consequently allow Debian to drop such projects, which i believe is the case for txsocksx. > Removal from testing is not really problematic, but removal from Debian > is something that should not be done too aggressively. are you referring to this specific example or any other of *my* activities towards the py2removal effort? i dont see how this removal request is aggressive. just realize removing txsocksx will allow `src:parsley` to drop its python2 support, since it's the only remaining rdep. > > > the reasonable way forward would be to close > > > this RM bug and watch how it all will get resolved in a few months with > > > new upstream versions. > > > > We've been known the end of python2 support would be in 2020 since > > years, i'm not sure it's fair for the projects that took the time > > earlier and to the debian maintainers to ask to keep supporting > > python2 packages for (relatively) old software for additional *few months*. > >... > > What always strikes me as weird is the py2keep option, why are you > offering that some packages can use Python 2.7 for an additional > *Debian release*? well, you need to ask that to who crafted the bug template. There *are* cases where it makes sense, the one that comes to mind is moin: wiki.d.o uses that software and we're in no position to switch to a different wiki engine; moin hasnt been ported to python3 yet (likely it wont) so it is justifiable to mark it as py2keep. > Much of the python2 removal only makes sense when the point is to not > have to ship and security support Python 2.7 in Debian 11. the level of security support will be decided by the security team in concert with the release team, if i remember correctly how it was done in the part (f.e. with chromium and node?) > There are plenty of older unsupported interpreters and libraries for > various languages in Debian, if Debian 11 ends up shipping Phyton 2.7 > then most python2 users are not a problem and using python2 is better > for our users than some of the blind 2to3 conversions to Python3 that > have been done resulting in broken packages. that is in no way a reason not delay the work on py2removal. we started at ~3500 bugs, we are at ~1000 still pending now. in no way they could have been worked on and resolved if maintainers only worked during the bullseye freeze. If we end up with 2/300 python2 modules/apps in bullseye (for important packages) that's already a good win, and the security and infrastructural implications of having such a small subset of packages will be entirely different than (say) 1500 still pending. I spent a great deal of time replying to you (which i may have spent in trying to drop some other package python2 support, f.e.), so let me be direct and ask you: what is the problem you want to raise *here*? what's your problem here? are you objecting to the removal of txsocksx? if not, please bring your considerations to debian-python@l.d.o and let's have the FTP Masters proceed with this package removal. Regards, -- Sandro "morph" Tosi My website: http://sandrotosi.me/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi
