1 |
Ühel kenal päeval, N, 05.12.2019 kell 23:23, kirjutas David Seifert: |
2 |
> When we started removing Qt4, tons of code still used it. To put |
3 |
> things |
4 |
> in perspective: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> grep -rl 'IUSE.*python_targets_python2_7' /usr/portage/metadata/md5- |
7 |
> cache/ | wc -l |
8 |
> |
9 |
> gives me 7070 ebuilds currently. 7070 is easily more than one and |
10 |
> closer to two orders of magnitude more ebuilds using python 2 than |
11 |
> Qt4 |
12 |
> back in the days. |
13 |
|
14 |
You are dramatizing things too much on purpose here. That gives you a |
15 |
list of almost all PYTHON_COMPAT packages, the majority of which |
16 |
support python3 already, and will happily continue working after the |
17 |
user drops python2_7 from PYTHON_TARGETS or it gets dropped from the |
18 |
_PYTHON_ALL_IMPLS list in python-utils-r1.eclass. |
19 |
|
20 |
> Removing maintainer-needed and other semi-dead |
21 |
> packages is part of a proactive strategy in continuously removing and |
22 |
> treecleaning stale stuff from the tree. |
23 |
|
24 |
That's the problem right here. The mask included packages that are not |
25 |
maintainer-needed, nor maintained by python@ or other projects you or |
26 |
Aaron are active members of. And it was a careless mask, masking even |
27 |
some things that aren't even affected, merely had python2 mentioned in |
28 |
some commented out stuff, afaiu. |
29 |
|
30 |
I don't think there would be such a huge outcry if this was done right |
31 |
- involving the actual maintainers of these packages, not just going |
32 |
ahead and package.masking them from under them 150+ days ahead of time |
33 |
of actual upstream python2 last release. Presumably most of these |
34 |
maintainers would already know whether the package is in the progress |
35 |
of being ported upstream (and just needs probably less than 120 days to |
36 |
complete that work and make a release), or know that it's dead and go |
37 |
away. Or they don't respond, and you can p.mask them on a maintainer |
38 |
honoring timeout. |
39 |
|
40 |
As this was done is completely unacceptable. Honor your fellow |
41 |
maintainers and don't trample over them like this. We already are in a |
42 |
lack of manpower, don't chase more away by trying to take the easy |
43 |
route and doing stuff like this without involving them via a tracker |
44 |
bug or other proper ways. |
45 |
If you don't maintain a package, you get to work with the maintainer, |
46 |
not do as you please without involving them at all. I am not aware of |
47 |
QA having such blanket authority either for such a case. |
48 |
|
49 |
|
50 |
I don't think anyone can have a valid problem with package.mask of some |
51 |
of the things mentioned (sabnzbd, abcde, etc), because they were indeed |
52 |
maintainer-needed or sound@ (which David is part of, and is known |
53 |
crickets territory) or whatnot. It seems to have found interested |
54 |
maintainers, as is normal with last-rite type of package.masks. |
55 |
But by including things that are actually maintained, without any |
56 |
apparent involvement of those maintainers, you allow for such outcry |
57 |
even for things that shouldn't be a problem, because you display ill |
58 |
intent and dishonoring towards your fellow maintainers. |
59 |
|
60 |
Honor your fellow Gentoo maintainers. Period. |
61 |
|
62 |
|
63 |
Mart |