Severity bump script

[Ondrej Novy]

Hi Sandro,

-- Forwarded message -
> We are going to raise the severity of the py2removal bugs to "serious" in
several steps.  In the
> first phase we are going to raise severity of the py2removal bugs for
> all leaf module packages and low popcon (< 300) application packages.
> Bugs marked with the "py2keep" user tag will not have their severity
> raised.

is there any progress with script from your site please? First we need list
to check. Thanks a lot.

-- 
Best regards
 Ondřej Nový

Python 2 removal in sid/bullseye: Progress and next steps

[Ondřej Nový]

Hi,

We are aiming to remove Python 2 for the bullseye release, or at least
remove as many Python 2 related packages as possible.  Python 2 is
discontinued upstream, but crucially, more and more providers of Python
modules don't support Python 2 in either the current or future upstream
version.

Some FAQs and guidelines can be found at 
https://wiki.debian.org/Python/2Removal.

With about 3300 py2removal bugs filed and 1500 closed, we are now
almost done with half of the removals.

We are going to raise the severity of the py2removal bugs to "serious"
in several steps.  In the
first phase we are going to raise severity of the py2removal bugs for 
all leaf module packages and low popcon (< 300) application packages.
Bugs marked with the "py2keep" user tag will not have their severity
raised.  If nobody fixes that bug, the packages will be auto-removed
from testing.
We will also then file bug reports against ftp.debian.org to remove
such packages from unstable.  We are going to do this semi-
automatically as additional packages become leaf packages.

We are working with the Lintian maintainers to bump the severity of
Python 2 related tags in Lintian.

If you are absolutely sure you need to keep your Python 2 only
application
in Debian, you should mark the Python 2 removal bug with the "py2keep"
user tag
(please do not replace the py2remove tag), using the 
debian-python@lists.debian.org user.
Please CC the bug report, because it's non-obvious who is changing a
user tag by just reading the bug report, and provide a rationale for
claiming it is "py2keep".
py2keep must not be placed on reverse dependencies of pygtk, because
the Debian Gnome maintainers already announced the removal of pygtk in
bullseye.

All dependency fields in debian/control and debian/tests/control must
also be updated to stop using the unversioned python 
packages (python, python-dbg, python-dev, python-doc) and instead use
the versioned package names (python2,
python2-dbg, python2-dev, python2-doc); this applies to both build-time 
and runtime dependencies.
Unversioned interpreters must also not be used in the shebang lines
(use
#!/usr/bin/python2 instead). When using dh-python, this will be done
automatically.  Check for explicit python and python-dev build
dependencies.  Don't forget to look at autopkgtest tests as well (for
both package and interpreter names).

For questions, feel free to contact people on the 
debian-python@lists.debian.org ML or on IRC (#debian-python on OFTC).

-- 
Best regards
 Ondřej Nový 
 Matthias Klose




signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields (was: PAPT: join request)

[Thomas Goirand]

On 11/10/19 1:20 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> is there any public trace of these "many voices"?

Just like when we discussed moving away from SVN to Git, we can't know
the exact number unless we have a kind of poll/vote (but we don't
actually *have* to start such poll... I'm just saying it's hard to know
otherwise).

However, I can account for maybe 5 people (it's hard to remember) who
told me (face to face) they hate this policy, and it felt like there was
a broad consensus that it was really against a team spirit, plus it made
little sense to have a package team maintained with strong ownership. I
wouldn't name the persons I have in mind publicly, because they haven't
granted me the permission to do so, and therefore, it wouldn't be nice
to do so.

All of this is just feelings I had during conversations with others, and
of course, cannot be accounted as just plain facts, so just take it as
it is: just a report of the feeling I had when talking with others, that
it looks like I'm far from the only one disliking this policy because of
the above mentioned reasons.

As Louis-Philippe wrote, it's very much ok to delay this conversation,
but sooner or later, it will come back on the table.

Thomas Goirand (zigo)