| 1 |
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 09:34:16AM -0500, William Breathitt Gray wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 09:24:26AM -0500, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 8:59 AM Jason A. Donenfeld <zx2c4@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > |
| 5 |
> > > It's quite another to mask random packages that have USE flags to |
| 6 |
> > > optionally support whatever python 2.7 library. If you're going to |
| 7 |
> > > last rites these, talk with the maintainer first, and only then, send |
| 8 |
> > > emails one at a time. Doing that en masse isn't appropriate. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > ++ - I have no idea if that happened. For anything USE-controlled it |
| 11 |
> > would make more sense to file a bug or mask the package-flag combo |
| 12 |
> > itself. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > > |
| 15 |
> > > On another topic, I'd prefer for python 2.7 not to be removed from |
| 16 |
> > > gentoo. Tons of code still uses it. |
| 17 |
> > > |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > I'm sure a million people would share that preference. I'm not sure |
| 20 |
> > what the upstream/security status is of 2.7. Obviously to keep it |
| 21 |
> > around it would need to be reasonably secure, and somebody within |
| 22 |
> > Gentoo would have to want to maintain it. That's basically the |
| 23 |
> > criteria for keeping anything like this around. If somebody stepped |
| 24 |
> > up and said "I'm maintaining 2.7 and here is why it will remain |
| 25 |
> > secure..." I doubt they'd get a lot of resistance. |
| 26 |
> > |
| 27 |
> > -- |
| 28 |
> > Rich |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> If Python 2.7 is EOL upstream then it sounds like upstream will not be |
| 31 |
> maintaining it any longer; i.e. no more bug fixes nor support. That |
| 32 |
> means Gentoo would have to maintain its own Python 2.7 fork if it's to |
| 33 |
> remain in the repository. Naturally, maintaining a Python fork is not |
| 34 |
> something the Gentoo team is ready to do, so it makes sense to remove |
| 35 |
> Python 2.7 now that the EOL date is approaching. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> Besides, the Python 2.7 EOL date has been known since 2015, so those |
| 38 |
> python 2-only packages will have had at least 5 years to migrate to |
| 39 |
> Python 3. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> William Breathitt Gray |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Wonderful response, William. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
For the others who are seeking a quick "why? how? when? what?" there are these |
| 47 |
links: |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
https://pythonclock.org/ |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
https://python3statement.org/ <--- This is a fun one. All the naysayers need to |
| 52 |
go yell at the projects too! |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
-- |
| 55 |
Cheers, |
| 56 |
Aaron |
Archives