1 |
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 11:38:58 +0200 |
2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 09:51 +0100, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: |
5 |
> > On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 07:29:45 +0000 |
6 |
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > > Dnia June 26, 2020 6:42:57 AM UTC, Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@g.o> napisał(a): |
9 |
> > > > On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 16:29:53 +0100 |
10 |
> > > > Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@g.o> wrote: |
11 |
> > > > |
12 |
> > > > > On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 16:05:38 +0200 |
13 |
> > > > > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
14 |
> > > > > |
15 |
> > > > > > On Sat, 2020-06-20 at 14:57 +0100, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: |
16 |
> > > > > > > Give maintainers the chance to act and flag packages that pull in |
17 |
> > > > python:2.7. |
18 |
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@g.o> |
19 |
> > > > > > > --- |
20 |
> > > > > > > profiles/package.deprecated | 4 ++++ |
21 |
> > > > > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) |
22 |
> > > > > > > |
23 |
> > > > > > > diff --git a/profiles/package.deprecated |
24 |
> > > > b/profiles/package.deprecated |
25 |
> > > > > > > index a756e845f47..bb661571962 100644 |
26 |
> > > > > > > --- a/profiles/package.deprecated |
27 |
> > > > > > > +++ b/profiles/package.deprecated |
28 |
> > > > > > > @@ -17,6 +17,10 @@ |
29 |
> > > > > > > |
30 |
> > > > > > > #--- END OF EXAMPLES --- |
31 |
> > > > > > > |
32 |
> > > > > > > +# Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@g.o> (2020-06-20) |
33 |
> > > > > > > +# Deprecated. Consider poring to python 3 and drop support for |
34 |
> > > > python2. |
35 |
> > > > > > > +dev-lang/python:2.7 |
36 |
> > > > > > > + |
37 |
> > > > > > > # Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@g.o> (2020-02-22) |
38 |
> > > > > > > # virtual/libstdc++ has only one sys-libs/libstdc++-v3 provider. |
39 |
> > > > > > > # Use that instead. Or even better use none of them. It's a |
40 |
> > > > > > |
41 |
> > > > > |
42 |
> > > > > > It will trigger the same for packages that support *only* |
43 |
> > > > > > Python 2.7, as well as these that support 2.7 in addition to 3 |
44 |
> > > > because |
45 |
> > > > > > they have 2.7 deps. |
46 |
> > > > > |
47 |
> > > > > If we expect actions by developers on both cases I don't see a |
48 |
> > > > problem with that. |
49 |
> > > > |
50 |
> > > > Pushed as: |
51 |
> > > > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=79d65d6641cfc0ef7b44df491c390e8c880e3049 |
52 |
> > > > with full text being: |
53 |
> > > > |
54 |
> > > > +# Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@g.o> (2020-06-26) |
55 |
> > > > +# Deprecated. |
56 |
> > > > +# - optional python:2.7 dependency should be dropped if no reverse |
57 |
> > > > +# dependencies are using it. |
58 |
> > > > +# - mandatory python:2.7 depepndency will require package porting |
59 |
> > > > +# or package removal if no reverse dependencies are using it. |
60 |
> > > > +dev-lang/python:2.7 |
61 |
> > > |
62 |
> > > You've just introduced 829 CI warnings |
63 |
> > |
64 |
> > That's the intention. |
65 |
> > |
66 |
> > > effectively disabling the ability to distinguish *new* problems in these packages. |
67 |
> > |
68 |
> > Correct. Citing above: |
69 |
> > |
70 |
> > "If we expect actions by developers on both cases I don't see a problem with that." |
71 |
> > |
72 |
> > I assume we still do. |
73 |
> |
74 |
> Not exactly. You've pinpointed the wrong target. |
75 |
> |
76 |
> First of all, we want people to support Python 3. Removing support for |
77 |
> Python 2 is a secondary goal. |
78 |
|
79 |
What is the desired end state here? All packages that depend on |
80 |
python should support python3? |
81 |
|
82 |
> Flagging packages that support Python 2 in addition to Python 3 |
83 |
> and cause no trouble in py2 cleanup is doubtful. |
84 |
|
85 |
What is "py2 cleanup"? I still struggle to understand what packages |
86 |
require change and which do not. Is there one pager doc that explains |
87 |
a few things for me: |
88 |
- How packages are picked for masking? Maybe we can deprecate them |
89 |
instead? Or we (I) can write a bit of code that flags packages requiring |
90 |
maintainers' attention. |
91 |
- What is the expected end state for the "py2 cleanup"? |
92 |
|
93 |
The doc would also be a good link to add to recently added "# Py2 only" |
94 |
masks as well. |
95 |
|
96 |
> Flagging packages that support 2+3 because of their revdeps is not |
97 |
> helpful at all. It's just noise to the maintainer who can't remove py2 |
98 |
> because of revdeps. |
99 |
|
100 |
I agree it can be spammy if we expect to have many packages with |
101 |
python2 support for an extended period of time (3+ months). If it's |
102 |
seen by others as too noisy I can revert the commit now. |
103 |
|
104 |
> Flagging dev-python/pypy* which needs py2 but is entirely outside |
105 |
> the eclass system is not helpful at all. |
106 |
|
107 |
To pick a concrete example: from what I read above I don't see why |
108 |
app-misc/golly was masked for removal. |
109 |
|
110 |
-- |
111 |
|
112 |
Sergei |