On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 10:53:03PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:06 PM, James Hogarth <james.hogarth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 5 Apr 2018, 18:28 Matthew Miller, <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 04:03:24PM +0000, James Hogarth wrote: > >> > > I'm imagining all those dependent packages _also_ moving to that > >> > > module.... > >> > Sorry Matthew but I can't see that actually happening at all... > >> > > >> > If they are already leaping to drop python2-* way ahead of the proposed > >> > EOL > >> > of 2020 when there is no extra effort to include the subpackage in their > >> > "normal" koiji+bodhi workflow for the main repos... why would they go to > >> > the extra effort of a special split to do that (no longer simple > >> > subpackage) into a module? > >> > >> Yeah, it would make sense where it's a pure-python python 2 lib, but be > >> quite a pain for packages where python 2 bindings are subpackages. > >> > >> -- > >> Matthew Miller > >> <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Fedora Project Leader > >> _______________________________________________ > >> devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > > > Heh just saw this one from a comment on Reddit... > > > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/calibre/+bug/1714107 > > > > Unless Nirik does a "maintainer patch" porting the entire code over himself > > I guess no more Calibre in F30 ;) > > > > "I am perfectly capable of maintaining python 2 myself." > Best laugh I had today. > > > But that's beside the point. > I just wanted to throw in something that I don't quite understand > about this thread: > > If I understand correctly, the original proposal was about > - dropping python2 support and sub-packages only in "fedora > 29" or > "fedora >= 29" (see the original mail in this thread), > - starting from leaf packages, so no unmet dependencies are introduced > during the retirement process. > > According to this, the python2 bindings for firewalld shouldn't have > been dropped from f28 at all, because > - there's still something depending on them (ansible support for > firewalld, still uses python2 on f28), and This dependency is not visible via rpm, because it's on the remote side not the controller side where Ansible is installed. i.e. $ repoquery --whatrequires python2-firewall yields nothing. As such, I missed this indirect dependency. It would be nice if there was a way to express this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't this be a nuisance in Ansible for some time? If the controller side (regardless of distro) defaults to invoking python2 on the remote then it will fail on f29+. I guess Ansible has knobs to tell it to use python3 on a set of remotes. Alternatively you can install python3-ansible. My point is, restoring the python2-firewall subpackage for f28 will help targets that are f28. But in f29, the package will definitely be gone and we're still "broken" for many controlling distros including older Fedora releases. > - the change was explicitly about f29+ (and not f28, too). I had dropped the python2-firewall subpackage before this thread was started. > > Please correct me if I am wrong. > > If I am correct though, it looks like the rawhide change to remove the > python2 sub-package from firewalld was mistakenly merged from rawhide > into f28, and should be reverted. I'm not an Ansible user so I don't know how painful it is for the python2-firewall subpackage to be gone. If the majority thinks it should be restored, then we'll bring it back. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
