----- Original Message ----- > From: "Fabio Valentini" <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 10:53:03 PM > Subject: Re: Intent to orphan Python 2 > > 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 > - the change was explicitly about f29+ (and not f28, too). > > Please correct me if I am wrong. > I would say that this is up to the discretion of each individual maintainer. As packagers tend to check the dependencies on the RPM level and in this case nothing actually required python2-firewalld when querying the repos, how would the packager know that there are somehow other things that depend on it which are not listed anywhere? On a relevant note, python packaging guidelines are soon subject for a change in regards to that [0] [0] https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/753 > 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. > > Fabio > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > -- Regards, Charalampos Stratakis Software Engineer Python Maintenance Team, Red Hat _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
