1 |
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:29 AM Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 2:18 PM Andreas Sturmlechner <asturm@g.o> |
4 |
> wrote: |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > The lack of curiosity for one's own packages' python compatibility is |
7 |
> not just |
8 |
> > a py27 isolated issue, it was a big problem with py36 -> py37 with so |
9 |
> many |
10 |
> > devs simply not filing that necessary stabilisation. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> That suggests that if you keep doing what you're doing, you're going |
13 |
> to keep hitting your head against the wall. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Right now in Gentoo there isn't really even a straightforward way for |
16 |
> a maintainer to cleanly obtain a list of all the packages they |
17 |
> maintain, let alone whether they use python v2. |
18 |
> |
19 |
|
20 |
> Sure, you can use the portage API to find this info. However, that is |
21 |
> as easy to do for a list of all impacted packages in the tree with |
22 |
> their maintainers as for any individual maintainer to obtain this info |
23 |
> for their own packages. |
24 |
> |
25 |
|
26 |
You say there is not a straightforward way, but then you say there is an |
27 |
api? :p |
28 |
|
29 |
|
30 |
> |
31 |
> I think that if you give the maintainers a bit more info, you'll find |
32 |
> them being more proactive about helping you out. Basically you would |
33 |
> be helping them help you. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> Otherwise you're going to mask a bunch of packages and run into a |
36 |
> bunch of upset devs, and as a byproduct we create a bunch of upset |
37 |
> users. |
38 |
> |
39 |
|
40 |
Extend the existing QA report? |
41 |
|
42 |
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gpyutils/py2.txt |
43 |
|
44 |
There is a list of py2 only packages. We just need to add the maintainer |
45 |
metadata? |
46 |
|
47 |
|
48 |
> |
49 |
> There is no reason to mask a package only to unmask it a few days |
50 |
> later. Masks are a mechanism for deprecating packages so that users |
51 |
> take action. They're not a substitute for devs talking to each other. |
52 |
> |
53 |
|
54 |
> -- |
55 |
> Rich |
56 |
> |
57 |
> |