On 4/13/20 2:25 PM, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
On Sat, Feb 08, 2020 at 11:13:20AM -0800, Martin Kelly wrote:
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 10:55:23 -0800 Martin Kelly <mar...@martingkelly.com>
wrote:
On 2/2/20 8:39 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
should we remove this package then? or do you want to generate a python3-gmpy?
I didn't realize, but it looks like this package actually does support
Python 3. I had assumed we would let this package die when Python 2
dies, since the package is dead upstream since 2013. However, looking at
the popcon stats, the original python GMPY is still much more popular
than than python GMPY2 (3543 vs 443). So I think it's worth keeping this
package.
I'm working on converting it over now and should be able to get it done
in the next few weeks.
Is it possible to remove the AUTORM tag until this is done, or should we
let it get deleted and upload a new python3-gmpy package after that?
Looking further, it seems that with current versions of Python 3 (I tested
with 3.7.3), the old GMPY 1.17 is no longer passing. When I run
test3/gmpy_test.py, I'm getting:
$ python3 test3/gmpy_test.py
...
8 items had failures:
1 of 4 in gmpy_test_cvr
4 of 126 in gmpy_test_cvr.__test__.user_errors
1 of 1 in gmpy_test_dec
2 of 2 in gmpy_test_mpf
2 of 60 in gmpy_test_mpf.__test__.binio
2 of 2 in gmpy_test_mpq
2 of 4 in gmpy_test_mpz
7 of 25 in gmpy_test_rnd.__test__.rand
1504 tests in 42 items.
1483 passed and 21 failed.
***Test Failed*** 21 failures.
In contrast, the tests for GMPY 2 all succeed, so I think the author clearly
intended for tests to fully pass. Since this hasn't been maintained for 7 or
so years, I'm not too surprised.
Given this, I think we should let this package be removed and consider
resurrecting it in the future if people ask for it and someone will step up
to maintain it.
Sandro, is there anything more to do if I want to let this package be
removed, or do I just wait for the auto-removal?
Martin, what are you referring here to with "removed"? Removal from testing
or unstable? The former happened automatically in the mean time, the
latter needs a bug using "reportbug ftp.debian.org"
Cheers,
Moritz
Thanks for clarifying; I filed a bug to remove this package from
unstable, as it's dead upstream and all reverse dependencies are removed
from unstable at this point:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=958138
