Request to join Python Modules Team
Hi, I have been the maintainer of pyecm and python-gmpy for several years now and have thought it would be a good idea to maintain these packages within the Python Modules Team. Therefore, I request to join it. Note that I am not a Debian developer and therefore do not have an Alioth login. Thanks, Martin Kelly -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Request to join Python Modules Team
You can register on alioth even if you're not a DD: your login name will have '-guest' suffix, but that's all. Having an alioth user is a precondition to join any team (so this included). Thanks. I registered and my Alioth login is mkelly-guest. Is that all I need to join? Martn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Request to join Python Modules Team
if you've read our policy, then yes, you're DPMT member now :-) [1] http://python-modules.alioth.debian.org/python-modules-policy.html Yes, I've read it. Do I need to submit my packages to the subversion repository or do I just keep maintaining them like I have in the past? Thanks, Martin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Request to join the Python Modules team
Hi, I would like to join the Salsa Python Modules team in order to continue maintaining my package python-gmpy2. I previously had Alioth access and have finally had time to migrate to Salsa. My Salsa login is aomighty-guest. I have attempted to read and accept the Python Modules policy (https://python-modules.alioth.debian.org/python-modules-policy.html), as stated in https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam/HowToJoin, but the link is dead. Thanks, Martin
Help with setuptools-related build break
Hi, I'm attempting to release a new version of my package python-gmpy2 [1] and am hitting a bug that I can't figure out how to resolve. Specifically, in the latest version under pbuilder, python-setuptools is missing. When I add python-setuptools and python3-setuptools it to the build dependencies, I get the following error: Err http://cdn-fastly.deb.debian.org/debian sid/main amd64 python-pkg-resources all 39.2.0-1 404 Not Found [IP: 151.101.52.204 80] Err http://cdn-fastly.deb.debian.org/debian sid/main amd64 python-setuptools all 39.2.0-1 404 Not Found [IP: 151.101.52.204 80] Err http://cdn-fastly.deb.debian.org/debian sid/main amd64 python3-setuptools all 39.2.0-1 404 Not Found [IP: 151.101.52.204 80] E: Failed to fetch http://cdn-fastly.deb.debian.org/debian/pool/main/p/python-setuptools/python-pkg-resources_39.2.0-1_all.deb: 404 Not Found [IP: 151.101.52.204 80] E: Unable to fetch some packages; try '-o APT::Get::Fix-Missing=true' to continue with missing packages [snip] E: pbuilder-satisfydepends failed. Indeed, this package version does not exist in the repo, so I'm not sure why apt is attempting to install it. Does anyone have some guidance and/or debugging suggestions? Thanks, Martin [1] https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/modules/python-gmpy2
Re: Help with setuptools-related build break
On 1/26/19 4:56 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Saturday, January 26, 2019 04:05:50 PM Martin Kelly wrote: Hi, I'm attempting to release a new version of my package python-gmpy2 [1] and am hitting a bug that I can't figure out how to resolve. Specifically, in the latest version under pbuilder, python-setuptools is missing. When I add python-setuptools and python3-setuptools it to the build dependencies, I get the following error: Err http://cdn-fastly.deb.debian.org/debian sid/main amd64 python-pkg-resources all 39.2.0-1 404 Not Found [IP: 151.101.52.204 80] Err http://cdn-fastly.deb.debian.org/debian sid/main amd64 python-setuptools all 39.2.0-1 404 Not Found [IP: 151.101.52.204 80] Err http://cdn-fastly.deb.debian.org/debian sid/main amd64 python3-setuptools all 39.2.0-1 404 Not Found [IP: 151.101.52.204 80] E: Failed to fetch http://cdn-fastly.deb.debian.org/debian/pool/main/p/python-setuptools/python -pkg-resources_39.2.0-1_all.deb: 404 Not Found [IP: 151.101.52.204 80] E: Unable to fetch some packages; try '-o APT::Get::Fix-Missing=true' to continue with missing packages [snip] E: pbuilder-satisfydepends failed. Indeed, this package version does not exist in the repo, so I'm not sure why apt is attempting to install it. Does anyone have some guidance and/or debugging suggestions? Thanks, Martin [1] https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/modules/python-gmpy2 Those are obsolete versions. You need to run pbuilder update. Scott K Thanks, this is what I thought as well, and so I kept running pbuilder update to no avail. I realized that I was using cowbuilder, so the update was happening on a different chroot. After starting from a clean cowbuilder, the problem is gone.
Python 3 transition question
Hi, I maintain python-gmpy and python-gmpy2, which need to transition to Python 3. However, they have several packages that have Suggests or Recommends (not a hard dependency) pointing to python-gmpy/python-gmpy2. These other packages appear to be Python 2 only. Should I stop building the Python 2 versions of these packages (and invalidate the Suggests/Recommends of these other packages), or should I instead just document this issue? If I document it, where should this documentation go? Thanks, Martin
Re: Python 3 transition question
On 9/1/19 10:07 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: On September 2, 2019 4:00:53 AM UTC, Sandro Tosi wrote: I would just stop building these. And if the reverse dependencies have a py2removal bug itself, then comment in these issues that the suggested/recommended package gets removed. If they don't have a py2removal bug, please file the bugs for these packages. i dont believe this is a sensible approach; for example i maintain python-mpmath, that would be rendered uninstallable the moment python-gmp2 is removed. Now, python-mpmath has 3 external reverse-dependencies (just to name a couple, sagemath and simpy) that would be then uninstallable, and so on and so forth for all their rdeps. Martin, i think for now the only option is to keep the py2 packages around until we're ready to drop them (ie they have 0 rdeps). I just checked on packages.d.o and according to it, python-gmp2 is a Suggests. Suggests aren't installed with packages. Unless I'm missing something, python-mpmath wouldn't become uninstallable. IIRC, policy doesn't even require Suggests packages to exist. I agree about keeping packages as long as they have reverse Recommends, but I think Suggests is going too far (although AIUI, missing Recommends don't make the package uninstallable either). Scott K If I'm summarizing correctly, it sounds like there is no policy on exactly what to do here. I think removing the package would be pretty bad, because gmpy is designed to speed up numerical libraries, and the performance hit without it would make many libraries really painful to use. Given this, perhaps the dependencies should be Recommends instead of Suggests. The guidelines I saw in the bugs filed on my packages (e.g. bug #937791) say to "document" the reverse dependency. Where do I document this?
Re: Python 3 transition question
On 9/2/19 1:18 PM, Martin Kelly wrote: On 9/1/19 10:07 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: On September 2, 2019 4:00:53 AM UTC, Sandro Tosi wrote: I would just stop building these. And if the reverse dependencies have a py2removal bug itself, then comment in these issues that the suggested/recommended package gets removed. If they don't have a py2removal bug, please file the bugs for these packages. i dont believe this is a sensible approach; for example i maintain python-mpmath, that would be rendered uninstallable the moment python-gmp2 is removed. Now, python-mpmath has 3 external reverse-dependencies (just to name a couple, sagemath and simpy) that would be then uninstallable, and so on and so forth for all their rdeps. Martin, i think for now the only option is to keep the py2 packages around until we're ready to drop them (ie they have 0 rdeps). I just checked on packages.d.o and according to it, python-gmp2 is a Suggests. Suggests aren't installed with packages. Unless I'm missing something, python-mpmath wouldn't become uninstallable. IIRC, policy doesn't even require Suggests packages to exist. I agree about keeping packages as long as they have reverse Recommends, but I think Suggests is going too far (although AIUI, missing Recommends don't make the package uninstallable either). Scott K If I'm summarizing correctly, it sounds like there is no policy on exactly what to do here. I think removing the package would be pretty bad, because gmpy is designed to speed up numerical libraries, and the performance hit without it would make many libraries really painful to use. Given this, perhaps the dependencies should be Recommends instead of Suggests. The guidelines I saw in the bugs filed on my packages (e.g. bug #937791) say to "document" the reverse dependency. Where do I document this? (ping). I'd like to resolve the bugs I have on my packages and am not sure yet how best to proceed.
