Re: Python 3 as default
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 08:12:45PM -0800, Diane Trout wrote: > > Instead, I mean, what would it take for the basic Debian system to install > > Python 3 only by default, and have any system scripts that depend on Python > > be Python 3. > Nothing. > I just did a default no-tasks selected debian wheezy system and no version > of python was installed. > Using a cowbuilder wheezy & sid chroot I decided to see what python the tasks > from tasksel install. > (e.g. apt-get -s install task-web-server | grep python) > Tasks: > task-desktop (with --no-install-recommends): no Python > task-gnome-desktop: (wheezy Python 2.7) (sid both Python 2.7 & Python 3.3) > task-kde-desktop: (wheezy no Python) (sid Python 2.7) > task-lxde-desktop: Python 2.7 > task-xfce-desktop: no Python. > task-web-server: no Python > task-print-server: no Python > task-database-server: no Python > task-dns-server: (wheezy no Python) (sid Python 2.7) > task-file-server: Python 2.7 > task-mail-server: no Python > task-ssh-server: no Python > task-laptop: no Python > Looking at the lists of packages suggested by apt-get it seemed like only > Gnome that wanted lots of python packages. $ cat /chroots/sid/var/lib/apt/lists/*_debian_dists_sid_main_binary-amd64_Packages \ | grep-dctrl -FPriority standard -a -FDepends python -sPackage Package: apt-listchanges Package: python-apt Package: python Package: python-minimal Package: python-support Package: python2.7 Package: python-reportbug Package: reportbug $ (It seems your tests somehow missed the "standard" task?) So the user-facing components that would need to be migrated to python3 to change the "default" are apt-listchanges and reportbug. As it turns out, both of these packages which are priority standard in Debian are not installed by default in Ubuntu, so actually there are no patches to pull from there. It seems there is a wishlist bug report asking for reportbug to be switched: http://bugs.debian.org/714896 Sandro, you replied to this bug arguing that we're years away from having a system free of python2. But as the above analysis shows, there are really only two packages that need to be switched to python3 to give users a python3-only system by default (python-apt already has a python3 port). I think it's important for the Debian base system to lead, not follow, when it comes to deciding which language runtimes will be installed by default. It will be years before python3 completely replaces python2, but there are already a number of packages for which a switch to python3 is advantageous (e.g., because of the greatly improved unicode support), and I believe we will begin to see significant python3-only projects in the jessie timeframe. I would like us to be able to drop python2 from Priority: standard in jessie in favor of python3, so that users can reasonably have systems with only python3 installed. Would you accept patches to reportbug and apt-listchanges to move them to python3? Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131207093208.ga28...@virgil.dodds.net
Trim out Ubuntu entries in d/changelog?
I've been working with gtimelog's upstream maintainer Marius, and with the permission of the old gtimelog Debian maintainers, have added it to PAPT. Please note that gtimelog was removed from Debian a while ago, but remained in Ubuntu, and now the plan is to add the latest upstream version back to Debian. I've put myself as Maintainer and PAPT as uploaders. Here's my question though: the d/changelog in PAPT svn has a bunch of entries from the times it was updated in Ubuntu ahead of Debian. There's useful information in there, but I'm wondering if I should trim d/changelog to just the changes that occurred in Debian. E.g. dropping everything between 0.0+svn88-3 (last squeeze version) to 0.9.1-1 which will be the new upload. OTOH, I suppose it doesn't hurt that much to keep all the Ubuntu changelog entries in the file. Anybody have strong opinions either way? -Barry signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Trim out Ubuntu entries in d/changelog?
On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 02:04:22PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote: > I've been working with gtimelog's upstream maintainer Marius, and with the > permission of the old gtimelog Debian maintainers, have added it to PAPT. > Please note that gtimelog was removed from Debian a while ago, but remained in > Ubuntu, and now the plan is to add the latest upstream version back to > Debian. I've put myself as Maintainer and PAPT as uploaders. > > Here's my question though: the d/changelog in PAPT svn has a bunch of entries > from the times it was updated in Ubuntu ahead of Debian. There's useful > information in there, but I'm wondering if I should trim d/changelog to just > the changes that occurred in Debian. E.g. dropping everything between > 0.0+svn88-3 (last squeeze version) to 0.9.1-1 which will be the new upload. > OTOH, I suppose it doesn't hurt that much to keep all the Ubuntu changelog > entries in the file. > > Anybody have strong opinions either way? In the past, I've treated them as "NMUs" to the package, and just included it in the changelog. There's no real harm in my mind, at least. I've even written "Acknowledge Ubuntu uploads" almost like ack'ing NMUs. My 2c, Paul -- :wq signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Trim out Ubuntu entries in d/changelog?
I usually include all logs which lead to the state of packaging to be uploaded, regardless of the distribution (or even at times UNRELEASED). Paul Tagliamonte wrote: >On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 02:04:22PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote: >> I've been working with gtimelog's upstream maintainer Marius, and >with the >> permission of the old gtimelog Debian maintainers, have added it to >PAPT. >> Please note that gtimelog was removed from Debian a while ago, but >remained in >> Ubuntu, and now the plan is to add the latest upstream version back >to >> Debian. I've put myself as Maintainer and PAPT as uploaders. >> >> Here's my question though: the d/changelog in PAPT svn has a bunch of >entries >> from the times it was updated in Ubuntu ahead of Debian. There's >useful >> information in there, but I'm wondering if I should trim d/changelog >to just >> the changes that occurred in Debian. E.g. dropping everything >between >> 0.0+svn88-3 (last squeeze version) to 0.9.1-1 which will be the new >upload. >> OTOH, I suppose it doesn't hurt that much to keep all the Ubuntu >changelog >> entries in the file. >> >> Anybody have strong opinions either way? > >In the past, I've treated them as "NMUs" to the package, and just >included it in the changelog. There's no real harm in my mind, at >least. > >I've even written "Acknowledge Ubuntu uploads" almost like ack'ing >NMUs. > >My 2c, > Paul > > >-- >:wq -- Sent from a phone which beats iPhone.
Re: Trim out Ubuntu entries in d/changelog?
[Yaroslav Halchenko, 2013-12-07] > I usually include all logs which lead to the state of packaging to be > uploaded, regardless of the distribution (or even at times > UNRELEASED). I usually ask my sponsorees to merge UNRELEASED ones, at least the newest ones (it's easier to figure out which upload introduced what). About uploads outside Debian - I think they're worth keeping in changelog as long as the information is accurate, f.e. "precise" in distribution field is not acceptable if given version wasn't uploaded to Ubuntu at all (PPA doesn't count, same for "wheezy" if it wasn't uploaded to Debian) (my 2 gr.) -- Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131207223724.gr3...@sts0.p1otr.com
Re: Trim out Ubuntu entries in d/changelog?
On 12/08/2013 03:04 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > I've been working with gtimelog's upstream maintainer Marius, and with the > permission of the old gtimelog Debian maintainers, have added it to PAPT. > Please note that gtimelog was removed from Debian a while ago, but remained in > Ubuntu, and now the plan is to add the latest upstream version back to > Debian. I've put myself as Maintainer and PAPT as uploaders. > > Here's my question though: the d/changelog in PAPT svn has a bunch of entries > from the times it was updated in Ubuntu ahead of Debian. There's useful > information in there, but I'm wondering if I should trim d/changelog to just > the changes that occurred in Debian. E.g. dropping everything between > 0.0+svn88-3 (last squeeze version) to 0.9.1-1 which will be the new upload. > OTOH, I suppose it doesn't hurt that much to keep all the Ubuntu changelog > entries in the file. > > Anybody have strong opinions either way? > > -Barry My take on this is that what you are writing is a debian/changelog, meaning that what you care here, is to have a log file of what is changing in Debian. I mean, you don't care Ubuntu, Mint, or whatever, you really want to document what has happened in Debian, and have your debian/changelog match the revisions that can be seen in the PTS. If there are changes that have happened in Ubuntu, then it's a very good idea to list them in your debian/changelog if you import these changes. However, I would consider bad practice if this means putting them in changelog entries for versions which never were in Debian. So you shouldn't just copy some entries for revisions that have never been in Debian (because that will not reflect the reality of the package), but probably put them all in a single changelog entry. In this specific case, I would suggest that you write something like this: * Reintroduce the package after it was removed from Debian. * Import Ubuntu changes which happened there when the package was removed: - Whatever ... - Whatever ... What I wrote as "Whatever" can be an exact copy of what you have found in the Ubuntu debian/changelog file, and you can even reference dates and Ubuntu package release numbers if you like. So, something like: - [release 1.2.3-4, 2013-01-02] Whatever ... Of course, the above is what *I* would do, and there's no Debian policy regarding this. Though I think it does make sense. Your thoughts? Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52a3de3d.3040...@debian.org
