1 |
On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 21:56 +0100, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: |
2 |
> On 2019-12-05 21:31, David Seifert wrote: |
3 |
> > > On another topic, I'd prefer for python 2.7 not to be removed |
4 |
> > > from |
5 |
> > > gentoo. Tons of code still uses it. |
6 |
> > > |
7 |
> > Sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you on this. |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > We're removing Java too from Gentoo (more implicitly than |
10 |
> > explicitly), |
11 |
> > because the Maven/Gradle ecosystem doesn't seem to scale. There's |
12 |
> > tons |
13 |
> > of code that uses java and java binaries too, and yet we're |
14 |
> > removing |
15 |
> > it. Python 2 is EOL in a few weeks. We have also removed Qt4 and |
16 |
> > lost a |
17 |
> > number of useful applications with it. At some point, we're not |
18 |
> > going |
19 |
> > to maintain a dead interpreter anymore. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> For the records: Nobody in this discussion or IRC chat said |
22 |
> |
23 |
> > Keep Python 2 forever. |
24 |
|
25 |
Again, disagree. You'll hear lots of voices that are along the lines of |
26 |
|
27 |
"So much enterprise code won't get ported to py3, and RedHat will be |
28 |
maintaining RHEL 7 and 8 for the next 10 years, so we'll always have |
29 |
security patches to rely on. Let's just keep Python 2 for the |
30 |
foreseeable future." |
31 |
|
32 |
many Gentoo devs have voiced that opinion, so asserting that noone says |
33 |
"Keep Python 2 forever" is false, and not by a negligible margin. |
34 |
|
35 |
> |
36 |
> It's about timing. From my POV and I read |
37 |
> |
38 |
> > Tons of code still uses it. |
39 |
> ^^^^^ |
40 |
> the same, there is no need to mask any Python 2 stuff _today_. |
41 |
|
42 |
When we started removing Qt4, tons of code still used it. To put things |
43 |
in perspective: |
44 |
|
45 |
grep -rl 'IUSE.*python_targets_python2_7' /usr/portage/metadata/md5- |
46 |
cache/ | wc -l |
47 |
|
48 |
gives me 7070 ebuilds currently. 7070 is easily more than one and |
49 |
closer to two orders of magnitude more ebuilds using python 2 than Qt4 |
50 |
back in the days. Removing python2 will turn into a multi-year, |
51 |
monumental effort of epic proportions, and I'm willing to bet |
52 |
€1000 that we'll still be stuck with it in 3 years. It will be one of |
53 |
the largest undertakings of Gentoo, probably more involved than getting |
54 |
rid of EAPI=5 ebuilds. Removing maintainer-needed and other semi-dead |
55 |
packages is part of a proactive strategy in continuously removing and |
56 |
treecleaning stale stuff from the tree. Tons of java stuff also still |
57 |
works, yet we're removing it because the ebuilds are ancient and |
58 |
unmaintained. |
59 |
|
60 |
> |
61 |
> Especially when new Python project lead sent a mail [1] to this list |
62 |
> few |
63 |
> weeks ago stating that there will be a _new_ last Python 2 release in |
64 |
> April 2020 (120 days away!). |
65 |
> |
66 |
> Now please explain to me and any Gentoo user depending on Py2-only |
67 |
> software why you are taking actions 120(!) days in advance. |
68 |
> |
69 |
> Again, nobody wants to keep Python 2 forever but starting to kill |
70 |
> *working* software 120 days in *advance* deserves at least an honest |
71 |
> justification. |
72 |
|
73 |
So what do you propose? Starting to remove/fix 7070 ebuilds after April |
74 |
2020 then? Why start in April 2020? Let's just wait till May 2029, when |
75 |
RHEL 8 goes into end of maintenance support. That's a good time point |
76 |
then? It doesn't matter what time point you think is suitable, *any* |
77 |
time point will be arbitrary to someone. Every change breaks somebody's |
78 |
workflow. |
79 |
|
80 |
> |
81 |
> PS: And given that a release in April won't break the next day, we |
82 |
> are |
83 |
> actually talking about more than 120 days in advance. Security |
84 |
> argument |
85 |
> is not valid because if there will be any serious vulnerability in |
86 |
> Py2 |
87 |
> found after this release (which will be surprising after so many |
88 |
> years) |
89 |
> you can expect backports because other distributions still have to |
90 |
> support Py2 two more years at minimum. |
91 |
|
92 |
And that's exactly the straw-man argument I've been making. You can |
93 |
always come up with an excuse to delay action on python 2, because |
94 |
"someone, somewhere, will maintain it". Heck, if RHEL 8 abandons python |
95 |
2 in 2029, let's just swap in Tauthon then, then we can use python 2 |
96 |
packages till 2100! |
97 |
|
98 |
> |
99 |
> |
100 |
> [1] |
101 |
> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/d00a956180ab7df980ac5642e3abc179 |
102 |
> |
103 |
> |