Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #14730

Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm?

Path	csiph.com!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From	Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.maint.python
Subject	Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm?
Date	Thu, 15 Dec 2022 16:20:01 +0100
Message-ID	<FCYbD-aR45-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<FC0Sf-agdq-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Mailbox-Line	From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Thu Dec 15 15:19:09 2022
Old-Return-Path	<zigo@debian.org>
X-Amavis-Spam-Status	No, score=-110.025 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.515, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_DKIM_WELCOMELIST=-0.01, USER_IN_DKIM_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
MIME-Version	1.0
User-Agent	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.0
Content-Language	en-US
Organization	Debian
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
X-Debian-User	zigo
X-Mailing-List	<debian-python@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/20596
List-ID	<debian-python.lists.debian.org>
List-URL	<https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/>
List-Archive	https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/10981d65-b980-44f3-c23b-0c092966b2b8@debian.org
Approved	robomod@news.nic.it
Lines	60
Sender	robomod@news.nic.it
X-Original-Date	Thu, 15 Dec 2022 16:18:48 +0100
X-Original-Message-ID	<10981d65-b980-44f3-c23b-0c092966b2b8@debian.org>
X-Original-References	<CAM8zJQutSSUGjSRjK+jEzd6XMtMTFBrM6dPPKpUcbnexTKADSw@mail.gmail.com>
Xref	csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:14730

Show key headers only | View raw

On 12/13/22 00:51, Graham Inggs wrote:
> Dear Python Team
> 
> Looking at the current state of the 'adding Python 3.11 as a supported
> version' transition [1], the tracker [2] shows only 12 red packages
> (excluding unknowns and packages not in testing) remaining, copied
> below for reference.
> 
> We believe all FTBFS and autopkgtest regression bugs have already been
> filed and tagged.
> 
> The current state of bugs tagged 'python3.11' [3] is 116 resolved and
> 49 still open.  Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to fixing
> these, and especially to the organizers of the recent Python sprint
> [4].
> 
> As this transition is non-blocking (i.e. uploaded packages are able to
> migrate ahead of python3-defaults), we could wait for the remaining
> bugs to be fixed, or for auto-removal to take its course.  However,
> with the bookworm transition freeze only one month away [5], we'd like
> to hear from the Python Team within the next week whether they wish to
> proceed with Python 3.11 being the only supported version for bookworm
> (in which case we will allow python3-defaults to migrate right now)
> or, revert the changes in python3-defaults and have Python 3.10 as the
> only supported version for bookworm.
> 
> Should it be the former, we'd like an undertaking from the Python Team
> that they will help resolve the remaining bugs against key packages
> [6], as these cannot easily be avoided by manual or auto-removals.
> 
> On behalf of the Release Team
> Graham

Hi Graham,

For OpenStack, I believe I was able to fix all Python 3.11 bugs (often 
with the help of upstream, a few times, on my own but very trivial fixes 
like the easy getargspec -> getfullargspec). The remaining filled RC 
bugs because of Python 3.11, I don't really mind (even if these 5 
packages are AUTORM, I'm fine with that, they aren't key packages from 
the OpenStack perspective).

However, there's still one very annoying bug in flask-restful that makes 
it not rebuild under Python 3.11. Keystone needs flask-restful, so I 
*must* fix it.

Note here that #1024913 is because of another issue (ie: the autopkgtest 
functional test doesn't support more than one available Python 
interpreter, though it's easy to fix: simply kill the server between 
runs...). Though it hides the real FTBFS issue (failure in unit tests), 
which I believe is probably due to my upgrade of werkzeug 2.2.2 rather 
than Python 3.11.

Help would be greatly appreciated fixing this bug. Hopefully, I can get 
this done during my holidays (and avoid any other work...).

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Thread

Python 3.11 for bookworm? Graham Inggs <ginggs@debian.org> - 2022-12-13 01:00 +0100
  Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Andrius Merkys <merkys@debian.org> - 2022-12-13 08:20 +0100
    Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Graham Inggs <ginggs@debian.org> - 2022-12-13 19:50 +0100
  Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Timo Röhling <roehling@debian.org> - 2022-12-13 10:20 +0100
    Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? c.buhtz@posteo.jp - 2022-12-13 11:00 +0100
      Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Dmitry Shachnev <mitya57@debian.org> - 2022-12-13 11:10 +0100
      Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2022-12-15 16:10 +0100
        Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Dmitry Shachnev <mitya57@debian.org> - 2022-12-15 17:20 +0100
  Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2022-12-13 13:40 +0100
    Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2022-12-15 16:20 +0100
      Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2022-12-18 19:10 +0100
        Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2022-12-19 10:50 +0100
          Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Jochen Sprickerhof <jspricke@debian.org> - 2022-12-19 17:00 +0100
            Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2022-12-19 21:30 +0100
  Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Louis-Philippe Véronneau <pollo@debian.org> - 2022-12-13 17:10 +0100
  Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2022-12-15 16:20 +0100
    Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2022-12-16 10:50 +0100

csiph-web