Python 3.9 for bullseye
Python 3.9 as a supported Python3 version is now in unstable, and all binNMUs are done (thanks to Graham for the work). Bug reports should be all filed for all known problems [1], and the current state of the 3.9 addition can be seen at [2] (a few of the "bad" are false packages with b-d n python3-all-dev, but not building for 3.9, bug reports also filed). The major outstanding issue is the pandas stack, all other problems are found in leaf packages (leaf in the sense of that no other package for the 3.9 addition is blocked). Please help fixing the remaining issues! Matthias [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=python3.9;users=debian-python@lists.debian.org [2] https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/python3.9.html
Re: Python 3.9 for bullseye
On 10/18/20 12:13 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > Python 3.9 as a supported Python3 version is now in unstable, and all binNMUs > are done (thanks to Graham for the work). Bug reports should be all filed > for > all known problems [1], and the current state of the 3.9 addition can be seen > at > [2] (a few of the "bad" are false packages with b-d n python3-all-dev, but not > building for 3.9, bug reports also filed). > > The major outstanding issue is the pandas stack, all other problems are found > in > leaf packages (leaf in the sense of that no other package for the 3.9 addition > is blocked). > > Please help fixing the remaining issues! > > Matthias > > [1] > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=python3.9;users=debian-python@lists.debian.org > [2] https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/python3.9.html Going on with a test rebuild of 3.9 as default to file bug reports for more packages. The first stage1 packages for 3.9 as default [1] can be found at deb [trusted=yes] http://people.debian.org/~doko/tmp/python3.9 ./ deb [trusted=yes] http://people.debian.org/~ginggs/python3.9-repo ./ The first repo just having the python3-defaults packages from experimental. The second repo of course will be outdated very soon ... Bug reports for stage1 are filed, Graham is now running the test builds for stage2. The autopkg test results at [2] need checking. There's currently a britney bug which marks things as bad, and only gets it right after a week. Plus there's no way to select an "unrelated" package from unstable for a test, and have it marked as a successful test. So basically you need to wait until all the 3.9 related fixes migrate to testing for running a successful autopkg test. Matthias [1] https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/python3.9-default.html [2] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/python3-defaults
Re: Python 3.9 for bullseye
On 10/18/20 12:13 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Python 3.9 as a supported Python3 version is now in unstable, and all binNMUs
> are done (thanks to Graham for the work). Bug reports should be all filed
> for
> all known problems [1], and the current state of the 3.9 addition can be seen
> at
> [2] (a few of the "bad" are false packages with b-d n python3-all-dev, but not
> building for 3.9, bug reports also filed).
>
> The major outstanding issue is the pandas stack, all other problems are found
> in
> leaf packages (leaf in the sense of that no other package for the 3.9 addition
> is blocked).
>
> Please help fixing the remaining issues!
>
> Matthias
Hi Matthias,
I don't know if that was on purpose, but you happen to upload Python 3.9
in Unstable the day OpenStack was released. I then rebuilt all of
OpenStack to upload from Experimental to Unstable, and to my surprise,
it went very well (note: all packages in the OpenStack team are running
unit tests at build time on all available Python versions). Only 2
issues happened multiple times:
- base64.{en,de}codestring removal (easy fix: s/string/bytes/)
- Threading.isAlive removal (easy fix too: s/isAlive/is_alive/)
This happened
This is on a set of 200+ packages which I manually rebuilt.
I do expect that there will be more packages with the same issue, so
it'd be nice to have all Python-using packages rebuilt. As Lucas
Nussbaum proposed such a service, should we ask him to do such a massive
rebuilt? Or maybe you have other plans?
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: Python 3.9 for bullseye
On 10/23/20 1:07 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 10/18/20 12:13 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: >> Python 3.9 as a supported Python3 version is now in unstable, and all binNMUs >> are done (thanks to Graham for the work). Bug reports should be all filed >> for >> all known problems [1], and the current state of the 3.9 addition can be >> seen at >> [2] (a few of the "bad" are false packages with b-d n python3-all-dev, but >> not >> building for 3.9, bug reports also filed). >> >> The major outstanding issue is the pandas stack, all other problems are >> found in >> leaf packages (leaf in the sense of that no other package for the 3.9 >> addition >> is blocked). >> >> Please help fixing the remaining issues! >> >> Matthias >> >> [1] >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=python3.9;users=debian-python@lists.debian.org >> [2] https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/python3.9.html > > Going on with a test rebuild of 3.9 as default to file bug reports for more > packages. The first stage1 packages for 3.9 as default [1] can be found at > > deb [trusted=yes] http://people.debian.org/~doko/tmp/python3.9 ./ > deb [trusted=yes] http://people.debian.org/~ginggs/python3.9-repo ./ > > The first repo just having the python3-defaults packages from experimental. > The > second repo of course will be outdated very soon ... Bug reports for stage1 > are > filed, Graham is now running the test builds for stage2. > > The autopkg test results at [2] need checking. There's currently a britney bug > which marks things as bad, and only gets it right after a week. Plus there's > no > way to select an "unrelated" package from unstable for a test, and have it > marked as a successful test. So basically you need to wait until all the 3.9 > related fixes migrate to testing for running a successful autopkg test. > > Matthias > > [1] https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/python3.9-default.html > [2] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/python3-defaults Update: - Graham finished the test rebuilds with 3.9 as the default, and the archive on p.d.o is updated. We don't plan to keep that up-to-date. Bug reports for ftbfs are filed. - Bug reports are also filed for all failing autopkg tests triggered by the python3-defaults upload. - Lucas made an archive-wide test rebuild for unstable, adding more RC ftbfs issues, mostly for python binary-indep (all) packages. These don't have the python3.9 user tag. Matthias
Re: Python 3.9 for bullseye
On 10/23/20 1:07 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 10/18/20 12:13 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: >> Python 3.9 as a supported Python3 version is now in unstable, and all binNMUs >> are done (thanks to Graham for the work). Bug reports should be all filed >> for >> all known problems [1], and the current state of the 3.9 addition can be >> seen at >> [2] (a few of the "bad" are false packages with b-d n python3-all-dev, but >> not >> building for 3.9, bug reports also filed). >> >> The major outstanding issue is the pandas stack, all other problems are >> found in >> leaf packages (leaf in the sense of that no other package for the 3.9 >> addition >> is blocked). >> >> Please help fixing the remaining issues! >> >> Matthias >> >> [1] >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=python3.9;users=debian-python@lists.debian.org >> [2] https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/python3.9.html > > Going on with a test rebuild of 3.9 as default to file bug reports for more > packages. The first stage1 packages for 3.9 as default [1] can be found at > > deb [trusted=yes] http://people.debian.org/~doko/tmp/python3.9 ./ > deb [trusted=yes] http://people.debian.org/~ginggs/python3.9-repo ./ > > The first repo just having the python3-defaults packages from experimental. > The > second repo of course will be outdated very soon ... Bug reports for stage1 > are > filed, Graham is now running the test builds for stage2. > > The autopkg test results at [2] need checking. There's currently a britney bug > which marks things as bad, and only gets it right after a week. Plus there's > no > way to select an "unrelated" package from unstable for a test, and have it > marked as a successful test. So basically you need to wait until all the 3.9 > related fixes migrate to testing for running a successful autopkg test. > > Matthias > > [1] https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/python3.9-default.html > [2] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/python3-defaults - python3-defaults now migrated to testing. The following packages were removed from testing with fastened hints. numba python-executing python-fabio python-icecream python-molotov supysonic - The Python related ftbfs issues from the last archive test rebuild were user-tagged with 'python3.9', although I didn't make much effort to determine if these are ftbfs seen for 3.9 only, or for both 3.8 and 3.9. dh-python now supports building and testing for all supported python version before bailing out in case of errors, but this came too late for the test rebuild. issues for key packages (those with lots of dependencies) are: https://bugs.debian.org/973056 src:sphinx-tabs https://bugs.debian.org/973057 src:python-py https://bugs.debian.org/973061 src:nototools https://bugs.debian.org/973072 src:python-kubernetes https://bugs.debian.org/973087 src:python-fs https://bugs.debian.org/973114 src:python-future https://bugs.debian.org/973121 src:cairocffi https://bugs.debian.org/973126 src:responses https://bugs.debian.org/973134 src:python-webob https://bugs.debian.org/973165 src:pyflakes https://bugs.debian.org/973167 src:ufonormalizer https://bugs.debian.org/973168 src:pylint https://bugs.debian.org/973193 src:parso https://bugs.debian.org/973195 src:python-asyncssh https://bugs.debian.org/973239 src:python-fixtures For the other ftbfs, see [1]. Matthias [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=python3.9;users=debian-python@lists.debian.org
Re: Python 3.9 for bullseye
On 11/9/20 10:19 AM, Matthias Klose wrote: > https://bugs.debian.org/973239 src:python-fixtures Does anyone else than me think it's probably OK to just disable to 2 broken tests? Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: Python 3.9 for bullseye
Hey, On 11/9/20 6:34 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 11/9/20 10:19 AM, Matthias Klose wrote: >> https://bugs.debian.org/973239 src:python-fixtures > > Does anyone else than me think it's probably OK to just disable to 2 > broken tests? As long as it doesn't indicate something serious, it's probably alright to do so. - u
Re: Python 3.9 for bullseye
On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 at 22:20, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 10/23/20 1:07 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > > On 10/18/20 12:13 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > >> Python 3.9 as a supported Python3 version is now in unstable, and all > binNMUs > >> are done (thanks to Graham for the work). Bug reports should be all > filed for > >> all known problems [1], and the current state of the 3.9 addition can > be seen at > >> [2] (a few of the "bad" are false packages with b-d n python3-all-dev, > but not > >> building for 3.9, bug reports also filed). > >> > >> The major outstanding issue is the pandas stack, all other problems are > found in > >> leaf packages (leaf in the sense of that no other package for the 3.9 > addition > >> is blocked). > >> > >> Please help fixing the remaining issues! > >> > >> Matthias > >> > >> [1] > >> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=python3.9;users=debian-python@lists.debian.org > >> [2] https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/python3.9.html > > > > Going on with a test rebuild of 3.9 as default to file bug reports for > more > > packages. The first stage1 packages for 3.9 as default [1] can be found > at > > > > deb [trusted=yes] http://people.debian.org/~doko/tmp/python3.9 ./ > > deb [trusted=yes] http://people.debian.org/~ginggs/python3.9-repo ./ > > > > The first repo just having the python3-defaults packages from > experimental. The > > second repo of course will be outdated very soon ... Bug reports for > stage1 are > > filed, Graham is now running the test builds for stage2. > > > > The autopkg test results at [2] need checking. There's currently a > britney bug > > which marks things as bad, and only gets it right after a week. Plus > there's no > > way to select an "unrelated" package from unstable for a test, and have > it > > marked as a successful test. So basically you need to wait until all > the 3.9 > > related fixes migrate to testing for running a successful autopkg test. > > > > Matthias > > > > [1] https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/python3.9-default.html > > [2] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/python3-defaults > > - python3-defaults now migrated to testing. The following packages were >removed from testing with fastened hints. > >numba >python-executing >python-fabio >python-icecream >python-molotov >supysonic > > - The Python related ftbfs issues from the last archive test rebuild >were user-tagged with 'python3.9', although I didn't make much >effort to determine if these are ftbfs seen for 3.9 only, or for >both 3.8 and 3.9. dh-python now supports building and testing for >all supported python version before bailing out in case of errors, >but this came too late for the test rebuild. > >issues for key packages (those with lots of dependencies) are: > > https://bugs.debian.org/973056 src:sphinx-tabs > Fixed. > https://bugs.debian.org/973057 src:python-py > Fixed. > https://bugs.debian.org/973061 src:nototools > Pasted a trivial fix to the bug. I guess it could be NMUed (it's not a Python team package). > https://bugs.debian.org/973072 src:python-kubernetes > I patched the failures (see the bug) but then the build hangs for me. > https://bugs.debian.org/973087 src:python-fs > Fixed, but I forgot to put the Closes: #xxx in the changelog. > https://bugs.debian.org/973114 src:python-future > https://bugs.debian.org/973121 src:cairocffi > https://bugs.debian.org/973126 src:responses > https://bugs.debian.org/973134 src:python-webob > https://bugs.debian.org/973165 src:pyflakes > Fixed. > https://bugs.debian.org/973167 src:ufonormalizer > https://bugs.debian.org/973168 src:pylint > This looks confusing! Upstream is thinking about it but I'm not sure what their ETA is. > https://bugs.debian.org/973193 src:parso > https://bugs.debian.org/973195 src:python-asyncssh > https://bugs.debian.org/973239 src:python-fixtures > Upstream is thinking about this too. Cheers, mwh >For the other ftbfs, see [1]. > > Matthias > > [1] > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=python3.9;users=debian-python@lists.debian.org > >
Re: Python 3.9 for bullseye
On 11/11/20 3:27 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle wrote: > On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 at 22:20, Matthias Klose wrote: > >> On 10/23/20 1:07 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: >>> On 10/18/20 12:13 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: Python 3.9 as a supported Python3 version is now in unstable, and all >> binNMUs are done (thanks to Graham for the work). Bug reports should be all >> filed for all known problems [1], and the current state of the 3.9 addition can >> be seen at [2] (a few of the "bad" are false packages with b-d n python3-all-dev, >> but not building for 3.9, bug reports also filed). The major outstanding issue is the pandas stack, all other problems are >> found in leaf packages (leaf in the sense of that no other package for the 3.9 >> addition is blocked). Please help fixing the remaining issues! Matthias [1] >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=python3.9;users=debian-python@lists.debian.org [2] https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/python3.9.html >>> >>> Going on with a test rebuild of 3.9 as default to file bug reports for >> more >>> packages. The first stage1 packages for 3.9 as default [1] can be found >> at >>> >>> deb [trusted=yes] http://people.debian.org/~doko/tmp/python3.9 ./ >>> deb [trusted=yes] http://people.debian.org/~ginggs/python3.9-repo ./ >>> >>> The first repo just having the python3-defaults packages from >> experimental. The >>> second repo of course will be outdated very soon ... Bug reports for >> stage1 are >>> filed, Graham is now running the test builds for stage2. >>> >>> The autopkg test results at [2] need checking. There's currently a >> britney bug >>> which marks things as bad, and only gets it right after a week. Plus >> there's no >>> way to select an "unrelated" package from unstable for a test, and have >> it >>> marked as a successful test. So basically you need to wait until all >> the 3.9 >>> related fixes migrate to testing for running a successful autopkg test. >>> >>> Matthias >>> >>> [1] https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/python3.9-default.html >>> [2] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/python3-defaults >> >> - python3-defaults now migrated to testing. The following packages were >>removed from testing with fastened hints. >> >>numba >>python-executing >>python-fabio >>python-icecream >>python-molotov >>supysonic >> >> - The Python related ftbfs issues from the last archive test rebuild >>were user-tagged with 'python3.9', although I didn't make much >>effort to determine if these are ftbfs seen for 3.9 only, or for >>both 3.8 and 3.9. dh-python now supports building and testing for >>all supported python version before bailing out in case of errors, >>but this came too late for the test rebuild. >> >>issues for key packages (those with lots of dependencies) are: >> >> https://bugs.debian.org/973056 src:sphinx-tabs >> > > Fixed. > > >> https://bugs.debian.org/973057 src:python-py >> > > Fixed. > > >> https://bugs.debian.org/973061 src:nototools >> > > Pasted a trivial fix to the bug. I guess it could be NMUed (it's not a > Python team package). > > >> https://bugs.debian.org/973072 src:python-kubernetes >> > > I patched the failures (see the bug) but then the build hangs for me. > > >> https://bugs.debian.org/973087 src:python-fs >> > > Fixed, but I forgot to put the Closes: #xxx in the changelog. > > >> https://bugs.debian.org/973114 src:python-future >> https://bugs.debian.org/973121 src:cairocffi >> https://bugs.debian.org/973126 src:responses >> https://bugs.debian.org/973134 src:python-webob >> https://bugs.debian.org/973165 src:pyflakes >> > > Fixed. > > >> https://bugs.debian.org/973167 src:ufonormalizer >> https://bugs.debian.org/973168 src:pylint >> > > This looks confusing! Upstream is thinking about it but I'm not sure what > their ETA is. > > >> https://bugs.debian.org/973193 src:parso >> https://bugs.debian.org/973195 src:python-asyncssh >> https://bugs.debian.org/973239 src:python-fixtures >> > > Upstream is thinking about this too. > > Cheers, > mwh > > >>For the other ftbfs, see [1]. >> >> Matthias >> >> [1] >> >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=python3.9;users=debian-python@lists.debian.org >> >> > I had a look at the remaining ones, and updated the bug reports with patches and information about new upstream versions: >> https://bugs.debian.org/973167 src:ufonormalizer can be worked around, by re-introducing the plistlib.Data class. >> https://bugs.debian.org/973114 src:python-future disabling the _dummy_thread tests fixes these. >> https://bugs.debian.org/973121 src:cairocffi solved by new upstream version >> https://bugs.debian.org/973126 src:responses solved by new upstream, Dimitry wants to have a look >> https://bugs.debian.org/973134 src:python-web
Re: Python 3.9 for bullseye
On 11/9/20 10:19 AM, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 10/23/20 1:07 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: >> On 10/18/20 12:13 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: >>> Python 3.9 as a supported Python3 version is now in unstable, and all >>> binNMUs >>> are done (thanks to Graham for the work). Bug reports should be all filed >>> for >>> all known problems [1], and the current state of the 3.9 addition can be >>> seen at >>> [2] (a few of the "bad" are false packages with b-d n python3-all-dev, but >>> not >>> building for 3.9, bug reports also filed). >>> >>> The major outstanding issue is the pandas stack, all other problems are >>> found in >>> leaf packages (leaf in the sense of that no other package for the 3.9 >>> addition >>> is blocked). >>> >>> Please help fixing the remaining issues! >>> >>> Matthias >>> >>> [1] >>> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=python3.9;users=debian-python@lists.debian.org >>> [2] https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/python3.9.html >> >> Going on with a test rebuild of 3.9 as default to file bug reports for more >> packages. The first stage1 packages for 3.9 as default [1] can be found at >> >> deb [trusted=yes] http://people.debian.org/~doko/tmp/python3.9 ./ >> deb [trusted=yes] http://people.debian.org/~ginggs/python3.9-repo ./ >> >> The first repo just having the python3-defaults packages from experimental. >> The >> second repo of course will be outdated very soon ... Bug reports for stage1 >> are >> filed, Graham is now running the test builds for stage2. >> >> The autopkg test results at [2] need checking. There's currently a britney >> bug >> which marks things as bad, and only gets it right after a week. Plus there's >> no >> way to select an "unrelated" package from unstable for a test, and have it >> marked as a successful test. So basically you need to wait until all the 3.9 >> related fixes migrate to testing for running a successful autopkg test. >> >> Matthias >> >> [1] https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/python3.9-default.html >> [2] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/python3-defaults > > - python3-defaults now migrated to testing. The following packages were >removed from testing with fastened hints. python3-defaults 3.9.0-3 (supporting 3.8 and 3.9, defaulting to 3.9) is now in testing. python3-defaults 3.9.0-4 (supporting only 3.9, defaulting to 3.9) is now in unstable. After that version migrates to testing, we'll do the binNMUs to drop the extensions for 3.8 (this way we avoid testing against 3.8 again). python3-defaults 3.9.1-1 is expected next week with the upstream Python 3.9.1 release. We are not yet finished, still having the list list of RC issues at [1]. If you think that your package needs a break, because it is likely to break with partial upgrades, leave a message at https://bugs.debian.org/976655. I'll add these breaks as we had them for 3.7 (but didn't have them for 3.8). Maybe now is also the time to look at packages with outdated upstream versions https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?email=python-modules-team%40lists.alioth.debian.org lists 30-40% outdated source packages. https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?email=team%2Bpython%40tracker.debian.org looks a bit better. Matthias [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=python3.9;users=debian-python@lists.debian.org
