| 1 |
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 8:06 AM Thomas Deutschmann <whissi@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Sure, if packages don't work anymore or are blocking something, we will |
| 4 |
> start last-rite process. But for the sabnzbd example (I haven't looked |
| 5 |
> closely on any other package from that list) there isn't anything |
| 6 |
> blocking and it's a working piece of software. The only thing which |
| 7 |
> stands out is: It's a Py2-only package. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Well, that's simple enough. If the python maintainers intend to |
| 11 |
remove python2 then they need to remove anything that depends on it at |
| 12 |
the same time. Otherwise all those packages are going to break anyway |
| 13 |
and users just end up with a mess of error messages due to a broken |
| 14 |
depgraph. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
That said, as I've already commented I think it makes more sense to |
| 17 |
mask the reverse dependencies at the same time as masking python2 |
| 18 |
itself. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
And of course for something this big it wouldn't have hurt to announce |
| 21 |
the plans and what was going to get masked so that mistakes could get |
| 22 |
caught. Even though it is just a mask it is still a bit disruptive to |
| 23 |
have packages masked/unmasked because of incorrect identification of |
| 24 |
reverse/optional deps. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Ultimately though it is up to the python2 maintainers to decide when |
| 27 |
they want to remove it. If others want to step up and replace them as |
| 28 |
python2 maintainers and they have a reasonable plan for keeping it |
| 29 |
working that would seem like the approach that would make the most |
| 30 |
people happy. We can't force people to maintain python2 if they don't |
| 31 |
want to. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Rich |
Archives