On 07/17/2018 04:35 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
...snip...
>
> We want to keep them and we are able to maintain Python 2 for them
> (well, we would very much prefer to have them ported to Python 3 but we
> realize it's not always happening.)
Well, if something is broken in python2, breaking one of th
gt;>>> From: "R P Herrold"
>>>> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>>>>
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 8:57:11 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Intent to orphan Python 2
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 16 J
On 18.7.2018 00:03, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On 07/16/2018 11:15 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
This is just a reminder that nobody stepped up to maintain Python 2
after 2020. We still need to start dropping python2 packages.
What shall we do from here? File a Fedora System Wide Change Proposal
for Fedora
On 07/16/2018 11:15 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> This is just a reminder that nobody stepped up to maintain Python 2
> after 2020. We still need to start dropping python2 packages.
>
> What shall we do from here? File a Fedora System Wide Change Proposal
> for Fedora 30 that nothing explicitly white
On 17.7.2018 14:16, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Charalampos Stratakis
wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "R P Herrold"
To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 8:57:11 PM
Subject: Re: Intent to orp
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Charalampos Stratakis
wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "R P Herrold"
>> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>>
>> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 8:57:11 PM
>> Subject: Re
- Original Message -
> From: "R P Herrold"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 8:57:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Intent to orphan Python 2
>
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> > On
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 23.3.2018 12:23, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> > tl;dr: Unless someone steps up to maintain Python 2 after 2020, we need
> > to start dropping python2 packages now.
tl;dr: --- that statement by itself overlooks the obvious.
Not ALL packages become unsuppo
On 23.3.2018 12:23, Petr Viktorin wrote:
tl;dr: Unless someone steps up to maintain Python 2 after 2020, we need
to start dropping python2 packages now.
Python 2.7 will reach end of upstream support on 1st of January, 2020,
after almost 10 years (!) of volunteer maintenance.
Fedora still has m
On 04/08/18 17:49, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rex Dieter wrote:
And we've circled back to the original post starting this thread.
Note: intent to *orphan*, not intent to *retire*.
If it is not going to be retired, then why would we want to kill python2-*
subpackages throughout the distribution for n
On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 12:55:04AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > "ZJ" == Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek writes:
>
> ZJ> Please don't. This is a repeat of the original idea of having
> ZJ> separate python3 packages back when python3 was being
> ZJ> introduced.
>
> It seems that you are
> "ZJ" == Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek writes:
ZJ> Please don't. This is a repeat of the original idea of having
ZJ> separate python3 packages back when python3 was being
ZJ> introduced.
It seems that you are suggesting that pointless bureaucracy be kept in
place purely because it slows down
On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rex Dieter wrote:
>> And we've circled back to the original post starting this thread.
>>
>> Note: intent to *orphan*, not intent to *retire*.
>
> If it is not going to be retired, then why would we want to kill python2-*
> subpackages through
Rex Dieter wrote:
> And we've circled back to the original post starting this thread.
>
> Note: intent to *orphan*, not intent to *retire*.
If it is not going to be retired, then why would we want to kill python2-*
subpackages throughout the distribution for no reason?
Kevin Kofler
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Somebody needs to pick it up.
> ...
> I see no benefit from removing the python2
> package in such a rush.
And we've circled back to the original post starting this thread.
Note: intent to *orphan*, not intent to *retire*.
-- Rex
__
Peter Oliver wrote:
> In any case, once we start removing Python 2 components, it seems to me
> that the message to users is, "Python 2 can't be relied upon in this
> release". That being the case, if we did go ahead with this staged
> removal, would it be helpful to think of this change the other
On Sat, 7 Apr 2018, 19:17 Miro Hrončok, wrote:
Strong reasons for the distribution were already discussed above, including:
>
> * we don't have the ability/mapower to remove everything at once
>
Won't it take more total effort to remove things piecemeal rather than all
in one go, though?
*
On 04/06/2018 02:18 AM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> Is there some list of packages Ansible depends on?
Nope. I don't think there could be either.
(Or at least not a very good one).
You could possibly scrape the core modules shipped with ansible, but
thats going to give you tons of things that aren't
On 04/05/2018 05:10 PM, Eric Garver wrote:
...snip...
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't this be a nuisance in Ansible for
> some time? If the controller side (regardless of distro) defaults to
> invoking python2 on the remote then it will fail on f29+. I guess
> Ansible has knobs to tell it to
On 7.4.2018 18:45, Kevin Kofler wrote> How about just NOT removing the
subpackage to begin with if there is no
strong reason to (such as upstream dropping support)?
The strong reason for me as a packager might be "I don't want to
maintain this crap anymore, I see no benefit in it."
Strong re
On Fri, 2018-04-06 at 11:09 +0100, James Hogarth wrote:
> There's a good reason we have the change deadlines we do - and
> honestly I think dropping a subpackage (as opposed to retiring which
> is more visible) is sufficiently disruptive (and annoyingly invisible
> otherwise) that it should go thro
Miro Hrončok wrote:
> So apparently the general confusion/problem here is lack of
> communication when removing python2-subpackages.
>
> Filling a Fedora Change proposal for every single python2 subpackage
> removal feels a bit overengineered. So let's set up some basic rules
> about what to do wh
On Sat, Apr 07, 2018 at 04:15:15PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 7.4.2018 15:53, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 10:33:04AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>To be completely honest, if someone wants to drop a python2 subpackage,
> >>that's their prerogative but
On 7.4.2018 15:53, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 10:33:04AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
To be completely honest, if someone wants to drop a python2 subpackage,
that's their prerogative but it does bring up an interesting question.
Normally if someone wants to
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 10:33:04AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> To be completely honest, if someone wants to drop a python2 subpackage,
> that's their prerogative but it does bring up an interesting question.
> Normally if someone wants to orphan a package, they're welcome to do so
> and ot
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 11:18:13AM +0200, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> On 04/04/18 18:21, James Hogarth wrote:
> [...]
> >Can we please get some consistency here?
> >
> >I noted today that firewalld has dropped python2-firewall but of
> >course ansible isn't switching to py3 for the controller (and
> >th
> "CS" == Charalampos Stratakis writes:
CS> On a relevant note, python packaging guidelines are soon subject for
CS> a change in regards to that [0]
CS> [0] https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/753
Please note that the ticket there started off as a strong discouragement
of python2 pa
- Original Message -
> From: "James Hogarth"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, April 6, 2018 12:09:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Intent to orphan Python 2
>
> On 6 April 2018 at 10:18, Petr Viktorin wrote:
&
On 6 April 2018 at 10:18, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> On 04/04/18 18:21, James Hogarth wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> Can we please get some consistency here?
>>
>> I noted today that firewalld has dropped python2-firewall but of course
>> ansible isn't switching to py3 for the controller (and therefore local)
>
On 6 April 2018 at 01:10, Eric Garver wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 10:53:03PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:06 PM, James Hogarth
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, 5 Apr 2018, 18:28 Matthew Miller, wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 04:03:24PM +, James
On 04/04/18 18:21, James Hogarth wrote:
[...]
Can we please get some consistency here?
I noted today that firewalld has dropped python2-firewall but of course
ansible isn't switching to py3 for the controller (and therefore local)
until F29 and not all python modules are py3 compatible yet...
- Original Message -
> From: "Fabio Valentini"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 10:53:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Intent to orphan Python 2
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:06 PM, James Hogarth
>
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 10:53:03PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:06 PM, James Hogarth wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 5 Apr 2018, 18:28 Matthew Miller, wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 04:03:24PM +, James Hogarth wrote:
> >> > > I'm imagining all those dependent
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 9:06 PM, James Hogarth wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2018, 18:28 Matthew Miller, wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 04:03:24PM +, James Hogarth wrote:
>> > > I'm imagining all those dependent packages _also_ moving to that
>> > > module
>> > Sorry Matthew but I can't
On Thu, 5 Apr 2018, 18:28 Matthew Miller, wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 04:03:24PM +, James Hogarth wrote:
> > > I'm imagining all those dependent packages _also_ moving to that
> > > module
> > Sorry Matthew but I can't see that actually happening at all...
> >
> > If they are already
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 04:03:24PM +, James Hogarth wrote:
> > I'm imagining all those dependent packages _also_ moving to that
> > module
> Sorry Matthew but I can't see that actually happening at all...
>
> If they are already leaping to drop python2-* way ahead of the proposed EOL
> of
On Thu, 5 Apr 2018, 16:05 Matthew Miller, wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 03:11:47PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote:
> > But it's not python2 itself going that is really the painful part of
> > this ... it's the various python2-* packages going bye-bye as
> > maintainers (are already) dropping them.
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 03:11:47PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote:
> But it's not python2 itself going that is really the painful part of
> this ... it's the various python2-* packages going bye-bye as
> maintainers (are already) dropping them... even when they still work.
>
> Having a module of pytho
On 5 April 2018 at 13:23, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:58:57AM +0200, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>> And if you read the original mail to the end, you'll find that our
>> position is not as black-and-white as it might look from the Subject
>> line.
>> As Python SIG we maintain old P
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 11:58:57AM +0200, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> And if you read the original mail to the end, you'll find that our
> position is not as black-and-white as it might look from the Subject
> line.
> As Python SIG we maintain old Python versions like 2.6 or 3.3
> *today* – but just for
On 4 April 2018 at 22:06, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 04/04/2018 01:35 PM, James Hogarth wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, 21:28 Adam Williamson,
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This rather begs the question of whether there are any modules which
>>> only work *with python 2*, though...
>
> The answer is (at least base
On 04/04/2018 01:35 PM, James Hogarth wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, 21:28 Adam Williamson,
> wrote:
>
>> This rather begs the question of whether there are any modules which
>> only work *with python 2*, though...
The answer is (at least based on what I know from talking with upstream)
that ansib
Adam Williamson (adamw...@fedoraproject.org) said:
> This rather begs the question of whether there are any modules which
> only work *with python 2*, though...
Given 1500+ modules, all of which can have their own python library
dependencies, the safe answer is 'yes'.
We're working to solve that
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, 21:28 Adam Williamson,
wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-04-04 at 10:51 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On 04/04/2018 10:46 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > On 04/04/2018 09:21 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
> > >
> > > ...snip...
> > >
> > > > Can we please get some consistency here?
> > > >
> > > >
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, 18:52 Kevin Fenzi, wrote:
> On 04/04/2018 10:46 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On 04/04/2018 09:21 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
> >
> > ...snip...
> >
> >> Can we please get some consistency here?
> >>
> >> I noted today that firewalld has dropped python2-firewall but of course
> >> a
On Wed, 2018-04-04 at 10:51 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 04/04/2018 10:46 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On 04/04/2018 09:21 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
> >
> > ...snip...
> >
> > > Can we please get some consistency here?
> > >
> > > I noted today that firewalld has dropped python2-firewall but of c
On 04/04/2018 10:46 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 04/04/2018 09:21 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>
>> Can we please get some consistency here?
>>
>> I noted today that firewalld has dropped python2-firewall but of course
>> ansible isn't switching to py3 for the controller (and therefore
On 04/04/2018 09:21 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
...snip...
> Can we please get some consistency here?
>
> I noted today that firewalld has dropped python2-firewall but of course
> ansible isn't switching to py3 for the controller (and therefore local)
> until F29 and not all python modules are py3
On Mon, 26 Mar 2018, 10:59 Petr Viktorin, wrote:
> On 03/24/18 15:28, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Petr Viktorin wrote:
> >> As with any orphaning, that leaves two options:
> >> - someone else agrees now to take over in 2020 (keeping in mind this is
> >> a security-critical package and will be abandon
On 03/24/18 15:28, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Petr Viktorin wrote:
As with any orphaning, that leaves two options:
- someone else agrees now to take over in 2020 (keeping in mind this is
a security-critical package and will be abandoned upstream), or
IMHO, this is clearly the right thing to do. I hav
> > On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 08:56:02PM +0100, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 23:12:31 +
> "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
> > Just curious: better programming environments … such us?
> Anything in the ML family of course.
So, in looking it up, those languages have been around for a
On 25.3.2018 14:25, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I am all for kicking out Python 2 from things such as live images if it is
still on them, for space reasons. But I think it needs to remain available
in the repository.
And we are not saying "python2 needs to get out", we are saying
"somebody needs to ta
Silvia Sánchez wrote:
> First, I agree with Richard that packaging two versions is painful. It's
> also confusing from the other side. "Install Python. I already have it.
> No, that's Python2, you need Python3. (O_O)"
The packages are already renamed or being renamed to python2*, and the plan
i
Hi everyone,
First, I agree with Richard that packaging two versions is painful. It's
also confusing from the other side. "Install Python. I already have it.
No, that's Python2, you need Python3. (O_O)"
Second, I think the earlier we start the better. So there's time to cut
leafs and replace old
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 08:56:02PM +0100, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> On 2018-03-24, 15:09 GMT, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > I'm not personally a fan of either variant of the language
> > - it's silly that we let programmers use an unsafe, slow, interpreted
> > scripting language when we've known how to
On 2018-03-24, 15:09 GMT, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I'm not personally a fan of either variant of the language
> - it's silly that we let programmers use an unsafe, slow, interpreted
> scripting language when we've known how to make better programming
> environments for at least 40 years.
Just
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 04:07:51PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/23/2018 12:23 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> >tl;dr: Unless someone steps up to maintain Python 2 after 2020, we
> >need to start dropping python2 packages now.
> Bummer - I am speechless.
>
> >Python 2.7 will reach end of upstrea
Petr Viktorin wrote:
> As with any orphaning, that leaves two options:
> - someone else agrees now to take over in 2020 (keeping in mind this is
> a security-critical package and will be abandoned upstream), or
IMHO, this is clearly the right thing to do. I have been doing security
backports for
On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:57:19 -0400, you wrote:
>On 03/23/2018 07:23 AM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>> In case no one steps up, we'd like to start dropping Python 2 support
>> from dependent packages *now*, starting with ported libraries on whose
>> python2 version nothing in Fedora depends. (We keep a l
On 03/23/2018 07:23 AM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> In case no one steps up, we'd like to start dropping Python 2 support
> from dependent packages *now*, starting with ported libraries on whose
> python2 version nothing in Fedora depends. (We keep a list of those at
> [1].)
I'm +1 to the idea of dropp
On 23.3.2018 15:16, Jerry James wrote:
And please don't start dropping python 2 subpackages that are actually
used by other packages in Fedora without talking to the maintainers
first. I just got bitten by this change to python-nose-cov:
* Thu Mar 22 2018 John Dulaney - 1.6-13 -
Drop python2 s
On 03/23/2018 11:07 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Face it, your plan is naive and has failed even before it begun.
This is not useful feedback, and is hostile. Please use only
constructive criticism in the future.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedo
On 03/23/2018 12:23 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
tl;dr: Unless someone steps up to maintain Python 2 after 2020, we need
to start dropping python2 packages now.
Bummer - I am speechless.
Python 2.7 will reach end of upstream support on 1st of January, 2020,
after almost 10 years (!) of volunteer m
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:29 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> Just a note of warning: don’t to be too over-eager with dropping
> everything Python 2 related in EPEL-7. Its EOS is only sometime
> after 2024
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux#Product_life_cycle)
> and the question whet
On 2018-03-23, 11:23 GMT, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> Python 2.7 will reach end of upstream support on 1st of
> January, 2020, after almost 10 years (!) of volunteer
> maintenance.
Just a note of warning: don’t to be too over-eager with dropping
everything Python 2 related in EPEL-7. Its EOS is only
65 matches
Mail list logo
