| 1 |
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 2:56 PM Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 8:42 AM Jason A. Donenfeld <zx2c4@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > Hi, |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Aaron has marked tons of important and useful Python 2.7 packages for removal: |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Can we not do this prematurely? I've revered this commit until such a |
| 10 |
> > thing an be appropriately agreed upon. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Might make sense to wait to mask them at the same time as masking |
| 13 |
> python 2.7 itself? Maybe file a bug if not already done to make |
| 14 |
> maintainers aware that this is coming? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I assume the python team is the one deciding when python 2.7 has to go |
| 17 |
> (after all, who else is going to maintain it?). The fact that this is |
| 18 |
> about a month off did come up in another recent thread but I don't |
| 19 |
> think it was intended as a formal announcement. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
It's one thing to mask python libraries in general. If gentoo isn't |
| 22 |
going to support 2.7, then those libraries don't make sense to keep |
| 23 |
around. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
It's quite another to mask random packages that have USE flags to |
| 26 |
optionally support whatever python 2.7 library. If you're going to |
| 27 |
last rites these, talk with the maintainer first, and only then, send |
| 28 |
emails one at a time. Doing that en masse isn't appropriate. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
On another topic, I'd prefer for python 2.7 not to be removed from |
| 31 |
gentoo. Tons of code still uses it. |
Archives