Bug#946035: spyder: RFH: needs Build-Depends: python-language-server, qdarkstyle
Package: spyder Version: 4.0.0~rc3+dfsg1-1 Severity: normal spyder 4 (currently on salsa in experimental branch) needs python modules python-language-server and qdarkstyle These are currently not packaged for Debian, so this is a Request For Help to get them packaged so we can proceed with the spyder upgrade. -- System Information: Debian Release: bullseye/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 5.3.0-2-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Kernel taint flags: TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE Locale: LANG=en_AU.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_AU.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_AU:en (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled Versions of packages spyder depends on: ii python3-spyder 4.0.0~rc3+dfsg1-1 ii python3.7 3.7.5-2 spyder recommends no packages. spyder suggests no packages. Versions of packages python3-spyder depends on: ii libjs-jquery 3.3.1~dfsg-3 ii libjs-mathjax 2.7.4+dfsg-1 ii pylint2.4.4-1 ii python3 3.7.5-3 ii python3-atomicwrites 1.1.5-2 ii python3-chardet 3.0.4-4 ii python3-cloudpickle 1.2.1-2 ii python3-diff-match-patch 2018-2 ii python3-intervaltree 3.0.2-1 ii python3-jedi 0.14.1-1 ii python3-keyring 18.0.1-1 ii python3-nbconvert 5.6.0-2 ii python3-numpydoc 0.7.0-1 ii python3-pexpect 4.6.0-1 ii python3-pickleshare 0.7.5-1 ii python3-psutil5.6.7-1 ii python3-pygments 2.3.1+dfsg-1 ii python3-pympler 0.7+dfsg1-1 ii python3-qtawesome 0.4.4+ds1-3 ii python3-qtconsole 4.3.1-1 ii python3-qtpy 1.3.1-3 ii python3-sphinx1.8.5-3 ii python3-spyder-kernels1.8.0-1 ii python3-watchdog 0.9.0-3 ii python3-zmq 17.1.2-3 ii spyder-common 4.0.0~rc3+dfsg1-1 Versions of packages python3-spyder suggests: ii cython3 0.29.14-0.1+b1 ii python3-matplotlib 3.0.2-2+b2 ii python3-numpy 1:1.17.4-3 ii python3-pandas 0.25.3+dfsg-4 ii python3-pil 6.2.1-2+b1 ii python3-scipy 1.3.3-1 ii python3-sympy 1.4-1 Versions of packages python3-pyqt5 depends on: ii libc6 2.29-3 ii libgcc1 1:9.2.1-21 ii libpython3.7 3.7.5-2 ii libqt5core5a [qtbase-abi-5-12-5] 5.12.5+dfsg-2 ii libqt5dbus5 5.12.5+dfsg-2 ii libqt5designer5 5.12.5-2 ii libqt5gui55.12.5+dfsg-2 ii libqt5help5 5.12.5-2 ii libqt5network55.12.5+dfsg-2 ii libqt5printsupport5 5.12.5+dfsg-2 ii libqt5test5 5.12.5+dfsg-2 ii libqt5widgets55.12.5+dfsg-2 ii libqt5xml55.12.5+dfsg-2 ii libstdc++69.2.1-21 ii python3 3.7.5-3 ii python3-sip [sip-py3api-12.7] 4.19.19+dfsg-2+b1 Versions of packages python3-pyqt5 suggests: ii python3-pyqt5-dbg 5.12.3+dfsg-3+b1 -- no debconf information
Re: Severity bump script
Hi, po 2. 12. 2019 v 20:36 odesílatel Paul Gevers napsal: > #942999 and #936537 > ah right. I think this is correct. There is nothing else "in Python 2 removal process" to do on "someone else" packages. Work needs to be done in these packages so raise severity here to unblock other bugs and continue Python 2 removing effort. -- Best regards Ondřej Nový
Re: Severity bump script
On 02.12.19 20:28, Paul Gevers wrote: > Hi all, > > On 01-12-2019 22:45, Sandro Tosi wrote: >> Paul, this is the thread i was talking about. >> >> you were copied in the original email: >> https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2019/10/msg00098.html >> >> if there is something the RT wants to discuss about this effort, >> please do so here, not directly to me (i may be the mail address >> sending those control commands, but the decision was taken here). > > I understand the drive to push for Python 2 removal and sympathize with > it. The issue I had yesterday with the process is that "leaf" was > wrongly defined, it was looking at Depends, instead of also including > Build-Depends. that should be fixed. > I don't want to stand in the way of Python 2 removal, but as I said > before, pulling packages out from underneath maintainers isn't pretty so > needs to be done with proper notifications and care. An RC bug to ones > own package is acceptable in my opinion as it is a clear discussion > forum, and can be (temporarily) down-graded while the discussion is > ongoing. Being notified about some other package that I not even need > directly but is going to pull "my" package out of testing isn't a nice > experience and should be avoided. Yes, that slows down the process, but > there are people, emotions and all those irrational things involved. It's unfortunate that issues for some packages only get attention when the severity of an issue is raised. Following your proposal means that the issue is probably ignored forever, and you don't propose a better way going forward, just saying we should stop earlier. I don't think that's the correct choice. For now these seem to be single packages, so please could you name those, and we can look at those with a priority? That's at least a path that is forward looking, or feel free to propose another approach better than your current proposal for not getting the attention of maintainers. Matthias PS: There's a RC issue for creduce now, not caused by the package itself, should I downgrade it?
RFS: python-traits
Hi, Can someone please do an upload of python-traits? I did an update to the latest upstream release, plus various minor fixes. I didn't remove Python 2 support yet as there are still a few rdeps. https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/modules/python-traits Thanks, Scott
