1 |
On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 10:11 +0200, Mart Raudsepp wrote: |
2 |
> Ühel kenal päeval, N, 05.12.2019 kell 23:23, kirjutas David Seifert: |
3 |
> > When we started removing Qt4, tons of code still used it. To put |
4 |
> > things |
5 |
> > in perspective: |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > grep -rl 'IUSE.*python_targets_python2_7' |
8 |
> > /usr/portage/metadata/md5- |
9 |
> > cache/ | wc -l |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > gives me 7070 ebuilds currently. 7070 is easily more than one and |
12 |
> > closer to two orders of magnitude more ebuilds using python 2 than |
13 |
> > Qt4 |
14 |
> > back in the days. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> You are dramatizing things too much on purpose here. That gives you a |
17 |
> list of almost all PYTHON_COMPAT packages, the majority of which |
18 |
> support python3 already, and will happily continue working after the |
19 |
> user drops python2_7 from PYTHON_TARGETS or it gets dropped from the |
20 |
> _PYTHON_ALL_IMPLS list in python-utils-r1.eclass. |
21 |
|
22 |
Dramatizing that a significant portion of those need to be checked? Are |
23 |
you going to be doing that work? Are you going to check that the |
24 |
depgraph is valid? This is unlike py3.6 -> py3.7, where you just |
25 |
disable the impl in python-utils and stuff keeps working. This is going |
26 |
to trigger an avalanche. |
27 |
|
28 |
> |
29 |
> > Removing maintainer-needed and other semi-dead |
30 |
> > packages is part of a proactive strategy in continuously removing |
31 |
> > and |
32 |
> > treecleaning stale stuff from the tree. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> That's the problem right here. The mask included packages that are |
35 |
> not |
36 |
> maintainer-needed, nor maintained by python@ or other projects you or |
37 |
> Aaron are active members of. And it was a careless mask, masking even |
38 |
> some things that aren't even affected, merely had python2 mentioned |
39 |
> in |
40 |
> some commented out stuff, afaiu. |
41 |
> |
42 |
> I don't think there would be such a huge outcry if this was done |
43 |
> right |
44 |
> - involving the actual maintainers of these packages, not just going |
45 |
> ahead and package.masking them from under them 150+ days ahead of |
46 |
> time |
47 |
> of actual upstream python2 last release. Presumably most of these |
48 |
> maintainers would already know whether the package is in the progress |
49 |
> of being ported upstream (and just needs probably less than 120 days |
50 |
> to |
51 |
> complete that work and make a release), or know that it's dead and go |
52 |
> away. Or they don't respond, and you can p.mask them on a maintainer |
53 |
> honoring timeout. |
54 |
|
55 |
All the examples people name (abcde, eyeD3) are either maintained by |
56 |
sound, for which I gave Aaron an explicit sign-off, or they're m-n. |
57 |
This really boils down to what Rich called "somebody should maintain |
58 |
it, but it's not going to be me". The best example is probably sabnzbd, |
59 |
which people want, but don't want to maintain. |
60 |
|
61 |
> |
62 |
> As this was done is completely unacceptable. Honor your fellow |
63 |
> maintainers and don't trample over them like this. We already are in |
64 |
> a |
65 |
> lack of manpower, don't chase more away by trying to take the easy |
66 |
> route and doing stuff like this without involving them via a tracker |
67 |
> bug or other proper ways. |
68 |
> If you don't maintain a package, you get to work with the maintainer, |
69 |
> not do as you please without involving them at all. I am not aware of |
70 |
> QA having such blanket authority either for such a case. |
71 |
> |
72 |
> |
73 |
> I don't think anyone can have a valid problem with package.mask of |
74 |
> some |
75 |
> of the things mentioned (sabnzbd, abcde, etc), because they were |
76 |
> indeed |
77 |
> maintainer-needed or sound@ (which David is part of, and is known |
78 |
> crickets territory) or whatnot. It seems to have found interested |
79 |
> maintainers, as is normal with last-rite type of package.masks. |
80 |
> But by including things that are actually maintained, without any |
81 |
> apparent involvement of those maintainers, you allow for such outcry |
82 |
> even for things that shouldn't be a problem, because you display ill |
83 |
> intent and dishonoring towards your fellow maintainers. |
84 |
> |
85 |
> Honor your fellow Gentoo maintainers. Period. |
86 |
> |
87 |
> |
88 |
> Mart |