1 |
Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 9:38 AM Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
>> The best I can come up with, start figuring out a way to keep python 2 |
4 |
>> around on your own, use a overlay if one is available or start expecting |
5 |
>> python 2 to disappear, real soon. It seems the devs want it gone even |
6 |
>> before it's end of life. |
7 |
>> |
8 |
> Nobody really wants it gone per se. It is just that nobody has |
9 |
> stepped up to keep it around. Maintaining it is fairly complex, and I |
10 |
> suspect the people most interested in the nuts and bolts of python are |
11 |
> also the ones who are less interested in 2.7. I think most who want |
12 |
> it to stay are more interested in it from the standpoint of keeping |
13 |
> other software running, but may not be interested in actually taking |
14 |
> care of 2.7 itself. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> These sorts of situations usually cause controversy. Sometimes |
17 |
> somebody cares enough to maintain the software. Sometimes it happens |
18 |
> in an overlay (which allows a maintainer to be a non-dev more easily, |
19 |
> and it also eliminates most QA requirements so that can ease the |
20 |
> burden of maintenance, though with the caveat that those QA standards |
21 |
> exist for a reason so there are downsides). |
22 |
> |
23 |
> In the past when stuff like this has happened the software has |
24 |
> generally ended up being taken out of the tree, because the fact is |
25 |
> that stuff like this can break pretty quickly if nobody is fixing |
26 |
> bugs, and if nobody wants to maintain it then that will be what |
27 |
> happens. But, it is entirely possible that somebody will step up to |
28 |
> maintain it. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> Python is a bit messier than some previous cases like this because of |
31 |
> the whole way that PYTHON_TARGETS and such work, and the complexity of |
32 |
> the dependency graph. And keep in mind that the upstream announced |
33 |
> EOL is less than a month off. Not that this means the code instantly |
34 |
> stops working, but that is why we're starting to see masks and such |
35 |
> and more discussion/planning. |
36 |
> |
37 |
|
38 |
|
39 |
Well, when a package is last rited and masked for removal, I call that |
40 |
wanting it gone. The why I didn't get into because both sides made good |
41 |
points. It's not broken, yet, but they are going away and will be gone, |
42 |
soon. Still, the end result is, it's going away and it was announced. |
43 |
|
44 |
On one side, the packages aren't broken yet. No one mentioned a package |
45 |
that wouldn't build or work. They are still as usable as they were last |
46 |
week. But, as you say, python is a different beast and those packages |
47 |
will start to break, one by one and maybe even several at a time which |
48 |
will cause all sorts of issues. As I said, both sides make good |
49 |
arguments. |
50 |
|
51 |
The biggest point of my reply, this change may be the reason the OP is |
52 |
seeing this problem. It may not, I hope it isn't since there isn't much |
53 |
that can be done, but it could be the cause. |
54 |
|
55 |
Now back to digesting my homemade taco. Good stuff. :-D |
56 |
|
57 |
Dale |
58 |
|
59 |
:-) :-) |