On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 17:47 +0100, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 11:38:58 +0200 > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 09:51 +0100, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > > > On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 07:29:45 +0000 > > > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Dnia June 26, 2020 6:42:57 AM UTC, Sergei Trofimovich > > > > <sly...@gentoo.org> napisał(a): > > > > > On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 16:29:53 +0100 > > > > > Sergei Trofimovich <sly...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 16:05:38 +0200 > > > > > > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 2020-06-20 at 14:57 +0100, Sergei Trofimovich wrote: > > > > > > > > Give maintainers the chance to act and flag packages that pull > > > > > > > > in > > > > > python:2.7. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sergei Trofimovich <sly...@gentoo.org> > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > profiles/package.deprecated | 4 ++++ > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/profiles/package.deprecated > > > > > b/profiles/package.deprecated > > > > > > > > index a756e845f47..bb661571962 100644 > > > > > > > > --- a/profiles/package.deprecated > > > > > > > > +++ b/profiles/package.deprecated > > > > > > > > @@ -17,6 +17,10 @@ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > #--- END OF EXAMPLES --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +# Sergei Trofimovich <sly...@gentoo.org> (2020-06-20) > > > > > > > > +# Deprecated. Consider poring to python 3 and drop support for > > > > > > > > > > > > > python2. > > > > > > > > +dev-lang/python:2.7 > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > # Sergei Trofimovich <sly...@gentoo.org> (2020-02-22) > > > > > > > > # virtual/libstdc++ has only one sys-libs/libstdc++-v3 > > > > > > > > provider. > > > > > > > > # Use that instead. Or even better use none of them. It's a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It will trigger the same for packages that support *only* > > > > > > > Python 2.7, as well as these that support 2.7 in addition to 3 > > > > > because > > > > > > > they have 2.7 deps. > > > > > > > > > > > > If we expect actions by developers on both cases I don't see a > > > > > problem with that. > > > > > > > > > > Pushed as: > > > > > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=79d65d6641cfc0ef7b44df491c390e8c880e3049 > > > > > with full text being: > > > > > > > > > > +# Sergei Trofimovich <sly...@gentoo.org> (2020-06-26) > > > > > +# Deprecated. > > > > > +# - optional python:2.7 dependency should be dropped if no reverse > > > > > +# dependencies are using it. > > > > > +# - mandatory python:2.7 depepndency will require package porting > > > > > +# or package removal if no reverse dependencies are using it. > > > > > +dev-lang/python:2.7 > > > > > > > > You've just introduced 829 CI warnings > > > > > > That's the intention. > > > > > > > effectively disabling the ability to distinguish *new* problems in > > > > these packages. > > > > > > Correct. Citing above: > > > > > > "If we expect actions by developers on both cases I don't see a problem > > > with that." > > > > > > I assume we still do. > > > > Not exactly. You've pinpointed the wrong target. > > > > First of all, we want people to support Python 3. Removing support for > > Python 2 is a secondary goal. > > What is the desired end state here? All packages that depend on > python should support python3?
Yes, or be masked for removal. The desired result is that at some point in time we can disable py2 target in eclass without anything breaking. > > Flagging packages that support Python 2 in addition to Python 3 > > and cause no trouble in py2 cleanup is doubtful. > > What is "py2 cleanup"? I still struggle to understand what packages > require change and which do not. Is there one pager doc that explains > a few things for me: Some of this is mentioned in Python Guide [1]. [1] https://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/python-guide/package-maintenance.html#support-for-python-2 > - How packages are picked for masking? Maybe we can deprecate them > instead? Or we (I) can write a bit of code that flags packages requiring > maintainers' attention. This is really decided by humans, and I don't think it can be trivially automated. So far we've focused on masking packages that are either a. unlikely to be ported (e.g. dead upstream), b. have no Gentoo maintainers. > - What is the expected end state for the "py2 cleanup"? Not sure if I understand right but I think the answer is: we can disable py2 support via eclass and nothing breaks. > The doc would also be a good link to add to recently added "# Py2 only" > masks as well. > > > Flagging packages that support 2+3 because of their revdeps is not > > helpful at all. It's just noise to the maintainer who can't remove py2 > > because of revdeps. > > I agree it can be spammy if we expect to have many packages with > python2 support for an extended period of time (3+ months). If it's > seen by others as too noisy I can revert the commit now. The 'early' py2 removal date is set for 2021-01-01 AFAIR (I'm yet to publish the timeline I've RFC-ed earlier). Not sure if it's possible. One thing I'm sure of is that py2 support is becoming harder and harder. > > > Flagging dev-python/pypy* which needs py2 but is entirely outside > > the eclass system is not helpful at all. > > To pick a concrete example: from what I read above I don't see why > app-misc/golly was masked for removal. Me neither. But I really do think this can be resolved peacefully without neverending debates. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
