On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 11:07:39PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 2020-06-01 at 15:49 -0500, Matthias Maier wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2020, at 15:27 CDT, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > 2020-08-01 Python 3.7 migration deadline > > > > > > After this date, we lastrite all remaining packages that haven't been > > > ported. This gives people roughly two months, with a ping one month > > > from now. > > > [...] > > > 2020-12-01 Python 3.8 migration deadline > > > > > > We lastrite all the unmigrated packages. > > > > Most of the time (guess >99%) this "porting" simply consists of > > "keywording" with the new python target, i.e., a one-line change in the > > ebuild. > > > > What about we "auto keyword" all remaining packages that have a > > python3_6 target but lack the python3_7 target instead? Meaning, just > > add the python3_7 value to the corresponding PYTHON_*TARGET. > > > > Given the fact how little difference there is between python3_6 and > > python3_7 this seems to be the appropriate, gentler approach here. > > > > Most of these packages are unmaintained, seriously outdated and they may > actually be broken with py3.7 (because they're so seriously outdated). > I don't see that as solving a problem, it merely shoves it under > the carpet and leaves us with the same shove-under-the-carpet attitude > for the next few years. > > I like to think of these migrations as opportunity to fix some broken > ebuilds, update some packages and last rite all the things that aren't > maintained. >
Couldn't agree more here. Unfortunately, it is normally the big projects that have to deal with cleaning up the cruft. > -- > Best regards, > Michał Górny > -- Cheers, Aaron
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
