Fwd: next version of csvkit
cc'd to debian-python Forwarded Message Subject: next version of csvkit Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 22:26:27 +0100 From: Ghislain Vaillant To: Sandro Tosi , 857...@bugs.debian.org CC: python-modules-t...@lists.alioth.debian.org On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 16:53 -0400, Sandro Tosi wrote: On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 15:19 -0400, Sandro Tosi wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote: > > > > I have answered your RFPs, so Debian now should have all the necessary agate > > > > dependencies available in experimental. > > > > > > thanks! > > > > > > actually i take the thanks back: i just noticed you uploaded *only* > > the py3k version of the agate modules: how's that supposed to help > > csvkit, which provides py2 and py3k modules? > > 1. https://lintian.debian.org/tags/new-package-should-not-package-pytho > n2-module.html this is non-sense, it's doing only harm and no good to Debian or its users How so? Buster will not be supporting Python 2, so the narrative of having new source packages only provide Python 3 binary packages is totally justified. > > 2. apt-cache rdepends python-csvkit > > python-csvkit > Reverse Depends: > > 3. The documentation of csvkit [1] only references the command-line > tools. Besides, quoting the upstream README [2]: > > - "csvkit is **a suite of command-line tools** for converting to and > working with CSV." > > - "If you need to do more complex data analysis than csvkit can handle, > use agate." > > Therefore, based on these comments above, dropping the Python 2 > packages for the Buster cycle should not be that big of a deal. no, i do not plan to drop python 2 support for csvkit (not any other packages I maintain) until a developers decision is made. > > [1] http://csvkit.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html > [2] https://github.com/wireservice/csvkit/blob/master/README.rst > > Ghis If what you are worried about is the upgrade path for potential users currently relying on python-csvkit instead of python3-csvkit to use the tools, then perhaps the team can provide an answer to that (cc'd). Ghis
Joining the team
Hi, - I'd like to join DPM Team, I'm trying to learn and give my contribution to Debian, so I have adopted my first orphaned Python package: python-zxcvbn https://mentors.debian.net/package/python-zxcvbnand I prefer to work in a dedicated team. - In Alioth website i'm sprab-guest - I have read and accept the policy Regards, Sabino
Re: Fwd: next version of csvkit
On April 1, 2017 3:42:50 AM EDT, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: >... > >How so? Buster will not be supporting Python 2, so the narrative of >having new source packages only provide Python 3 binary packages is >totally justified. What makes you think this is true? As far as I know, Python 2 will be around a long time yet. Scott K
Re: Fwd: next version of csvkit
On Sat, 2017-04-01 at 15:55 +, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On April 1, 2017 3:42:50 AM EDT, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > > ... > > > > How so? Buster will not be supporting Python 2, so the narrative of > > having new source packages only provide Python 3 binary packages is > > totally justified. > > What makes you think this is true? I wonder whether I am the only one who read this [1] or that [2]. Pasting the relevant quotes below: "The 2.x series of Python is due for deprecation and will not be maintained past 2020 so it is recommended that Python 2 modules are not packaged unless necessary." "The idea is to basically stop uploading new Python 2 only libraries, port things on the critical path, and swap leaf packages to Python 3." csvkit definitely qualifies as such leaf package, since it is a collection of command-line tools, not a Python library. > As far as I know, Python 2 will be around a long time yet. Python 2 will be supported until 2020. That's sooner rather than later considering we are in 2017 and Stretch has not been released yet. [1] https://lintian.debian.org/tags/new-package-should-not-package-pyth on2-module.html [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2015/04/msg5.htm l Ghis
Re: Fwd: next version of csvkit
On Saturday, April 01, 2017 05:12:38 PM Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > On Sat, 2017-04-01 at 15:55 +, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On April 1, 2017 3:42:50 AM EDT, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > > > ... > > > > > > How so? Buster will not be supporting Python 2, so the narrative of > > > having new source packages only provide Python 3 binary packages is > > > totally justified. > > > > What makes you think this is true? > > I wonder whether I am the only one who read this [1] or that [2]. > > Pasting the relevant quotes below: > > "The 2.x series of Python is due for deprecation and will not be > maintained past 2020 so it is recommended that Python 2 modules are not > packaged unless necessary." > > "The idea is to basically stop uploading new Python 2 only libraries, > port things on the critical path, and swap leaf packages to Python 3." > > csvkit definitely qualifies as such leaf package, since it is a > collection of command-line tools, not a Python library. > > > As far as I know, Python 2 will be around a long time yet. > > Python 2 will be supported until 2020. That's sooner rather than later > considering we are in 2017 and Stretch has not been released yet. > > [1] https://lintian.debian.org/tags/new-package-should-not-package-pyth > on2-module.html > [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2015/04/msg5.htm > l It's not at all clear where [1] came from. The lintian changelog [3] does not give a bug reference and I couldn't find a bug. [2] is about porting Debian's own infrastructure to Python 3. It's nothing to do with removing support for Python 2 from the archive. Although the current date is 2020, I don't know anyone in the Python community that doesn't expect that to be extended one way or another (it might be external to python.org). No matter how it's managed there are huge Python 2 code bases that aren't migrated and won't be done in three years. I believe it makes sense to consider if Python 2 support is needed for new packages or not (as an example, when we initially packaged PyQt5 we did it only for Python 3, but later had to add Python 2 packages to support upstreams that had migrated from Qt4 to Qt5, but not yet to Python 3). That is completely different than expecting the existing Python 2 things that we have will go away. Pushing too hard on Python 2 removal is a great way to make Debian less relevant for things Pythonic. Scott K [3] https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/l/lintian/changelog-2.5.50
Re: Fwd: next version of csvkit
On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Saturday, April 01, 2017 05:12:38 PM Ghislain Vaillant wrote: >> On Sat, 2017-04-01 at 15:55 +, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> > On April 1, 2017 3:42:50 AM EDT, Ghislain Vaillant > wrote: >> > > ... >> > > >> > > How so? Buster will not be supporting Python 2, so the narrative of >> > > having new source packages only provide Python 3 binary packages is >> > > totally justified. >> > >> > What makes you think this is true? >> >> I wonder whether I am the only one who read this [1] or that [2]. >> >> Pasting the relevant quotes below: >> >> "The 2.x series of Python is due for deprecation and will not be >> maintained past 2020 so it is recommended that Python 2 modules are not >> packaged unless necessary." >> >> "The idea is to basically stop uploading new Python 2 only libraries, >> port things on the critical path, and swap leaf packages to Python 3." >> >> csvkit definitely qualifies as such leaf package, since it is a >> collection of command-line tools, not a Python library. >> >> > As far as I know, Python 2 will be around a long time yet. >> >> Python 2 will be supported until 2020. That's sooner rather than later >> considering we are in 2017 and Stretch has not been released yet. >> >> [1] https://lintian.debian.org/tags/new-package-should-not-package-pyth >> on2-module.html >> [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2015/04/msg5.htm >> l > > It's not at all clear where [1] came from. The lintian changelog [3] does not > give a bug reference and I couldn't find a bug. it's just a few lines down in the changelog: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=829744 (it is kinda sad that there was no discussion with the python team from the lintian maintainer before accepting and merging it, even if it was done after stretch freeze, which was indeed a clever move) > > [2] is about porting Debian's own infrastructure to Python 3. It's nothing to > do with removing support for Python 2 from the archive. > > Although the current date is 2020, I don't know anyone in the Python community > that doesn't expect that to be extended one way or another (it might be > external to python.org). No matter how it's managed there are huge Python 2 > code bases that aren't migrated and won't be done in three years. > > I believe it makes sense to consider if Python 2 support is needed for new > packages or not (as an example, when we initially packaged PyQt5 we did it > only for Python 3, but later had to add Python 2 packages to support upstreams > that had migrated from Qt4 to Qt5, but not yet to Python 3). > > That is completely different than expecting the existing Python 2 things that > we have will go away. Pushing too hard on Python 2 removal is a great way to > make Debian less relevant for things Pythonic. Thanks for saying exactly what i'm thinking. I've been bitten already twice (excluding agate) by source packages not shipping a python2 binary packages for pkgs depending on them. I am sure that the python codebase i'm working on will not be migrated to python 3 before the current deadline. This crusade against python 2 in debian is just making my work harder and in general a disservice to debian users. Dropping a package is a lot easier than passing thru NEW (even if it's very quick nowdays, but it still requires manual intervention) to add a new one: can we stop considering python 2 dead, and make it as best as we can in Debian (even eventual dropping it once we reach a decision it's the right move)? -- Sandro "morph" Tosi My website: http://sandrotosi.me/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi G+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+SandroTosi
