On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 4:33 AM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I also think that there ought to be more cooperation from the maintainers of
> > individual python2-* modules. The approved Fedora 31 Change makes it way too
> > easy for maintainers to just drop Python 2 support for no reason.
>
> When a packager doesn't want to maintain it, that's good enough reason.
>
> You have a right to orphan a package, why you should not have the right to
> orphan a half of your package, when he other half works without it?
>
> > If
> > upstream dropped Python 2 support from the current version and so an old
> > version has to be packaged specifically for Python 2, that is one good
> > reason to require somebody else to pick up maintenance, but as it stands, no
> > such reason is required and Fedora maintainers can arbitrarily drop Python 2
> > support from their Python modules even if upstream still supports it. This
> > is just pointless and unhelpful.
>
> Requiring others to maintain the packages your packages (or you) need just
> because they maintained it until now is not very friendly. Of course, you can
> ask nicely, but you cannot say this is their duty.
It's not merely difficult, it's burning time better spent porting the
python2 packages to python3
> > We can try to find people to pick up python2 and a bunch of python2-*
> > modules, but expecting the python2 maintainer(s) to sign up for maintaining
> > each and every python2-* module is unreasonable and unrealistic. Even if
> > several of them will also be dead upstream (at least the version that works
> > with Python 2) and thus require very little maintenance effort.
>
> Arguably, maintaining dead software requires more effort than maintaining live
> one. But that kinda depends on the particular package.
>
> I don't need people to maintain **all** Python 2 packages, just mine. But
> possibly other maintainers also don't want to maintain theirs. As the snowball
> rolls, you need somebody to maintain **almost all** of them.
I've run into this snowball, quite recently, backporting awscli to
RHEL 6. I finally had to throw in the towel for Samba and give up on
RHEL 6 for current Samba releases with the domain controller enabled.
> >> Simply replacing the "python2" line iwth "python27" is not a difficent
> >> edit in most source code.
> > But it is still a completely unnecessary edit.
>
> Yes.
It's proven helpful with the python3 enabled packages to use
"%{_python3}" and "%{_python2}" consistently, especially when
splitting packages for versions backported to RHEL or publiswhed in
EPEL. Red Hat is due to publish a python3 built right into RHEL 7.7,
so it should be possible to discard python2 more generally for folks
like me that do backports.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
