Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #14827

Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm?

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show key headers only | View raw

Am Sat, Jan 07, 2023 at 09:05:21AM +0100 schrieb Andreas Tille:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> Am Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 01:57:43PM +0100 schrieb Thomas Goirand:
> > 
> > This has since already been discussed here: the final decision was to "at
> > least try 3.11", which is exactly what we're doing.
> 
> I admit I was not at site and may be I missunderstood what was finally
> decided.  From my perspective this "at least try" is that we are
> actually trying by having 3.11 as additional supported version which has
> triggered quite some work.  We are approaching the Transition and
> Toolchain Freeze in 5 days[1].  Given that switching default Python is a
> transition I wonder how you can assume that this is the right time to
> suggest this.  I would not have been that astonished if you would have
> done so say at first December last year.  But now its absolutely clear
> that a migration (with the "option" to revert which will cause extra
> work) will pour sand into the gears of the release process.

How will we decide whether the "at least try 3.11" is success or fail?
Did we defined anything I might have missed in terms of number of
packages that need to pass or number of packages we shoule not loose?
  
> > FYI, I'm down with only 2 major bugs (I don't mind much if the other 3 RC
> > bugs push the 3 affected packages away from the release, it's just a "would
> > be nice" thing ATM):
> 
> That's a nice situation for the field you are working in.
>  
> > > If I would create a list mine whould be way longer.
> > 
> > Please share it in this list!
> 
>    #1023965 [src:pandas] pandas FTBFS with Python 3.11 as supported version
>    #1024031 [src:numba] numba FTBFS with Python 3.11 as supported version

I'd like to add

  #1027851 [src:pytorch] FTBFS with Python 3.11 as default version

also with lots of rdepends.

> These packages have a sufficient amount of rdepends and usually trigger
> lots of other autopkgtest failures in other packages which will keep
> them out of testing for quite some time.  We could need all helping
> hands to fix these ... all noise that will happen afterwards will keep
> the relevant teams busy enough.

I did not received any response to my "small" list.  What does this
mean for the transition to 3.11 process?

> > > We are constantly beaten by removal from testing warnings
> > > even with Python3.11 as an option and sometimes we simply need to remove
> > > that option as a temporary means for bookworm.
> > 
> > Same over here. It's finally looking good for me after 2 months of heavy
> > efforts.
> 
> You mean you are fixing Python 3.10 manually in some packages diverging
> what will be default Python?

Any answer to this question?

> > > No better solution but better timing which means after bookworm release.
> > 
> > I've read *many* people saying it would be disappointing for them to see
> > their package removed because of Python 3.11. Well, please consider that it
> > would also be very disappointing to *not* have Python 3.11 for those who
> > managed constantly fix issues for it.
> 
> I can understand that we can never satisfy the needs of everybody.  My
> main problem is the extremely unfortunate timing that is happening now.
>  
> > The timing was exactly what was discussed during Debconf: it's very annoying
> > that this year, upstream Python release was one month late... we're only
> > trying to deal with it.
> 
> I do not remember that the scchedule was discussed.
> 
>    * Add 3.11 as a supported Python3 version
> 
> was done in python3-defaults (3.10.6-2) at Fri, 11 Nov 2022 11:10:31
> +0200.  At 12. December Graham suggested on the behalf of the release
> team[2] to switch to 3.11.  If we would have acted upon this at that
> very time I would have considered this quite dense but the last chance
> to consider this in line with the "lets try" attempt discussed at
> DebConf.
> 
> Bug #1026825: python3.11 as default filed right before (21.12.) a series
> of holidays in the region of the world where lots of developers will
> typically reduce their activity which is closely followed by the first
> freeze step is IMHO something else.  Since I realised that the transition
> was started[3] our discussion is a bit useless.  I just want to explain
> the motivation why I sounded "astonished" since you said that you do
> not understood astonishment since we are following the suggested plan.

I keep on thinking that the timing is unfortunate and that it
will spoil the whole release process.

Kind regards
     Andreas.
 
> 
> [1] https://release.debian.org/testing/freeze_policy.html
> [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2022/12/msg00074.html
> [3] https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/python3.11-default.html
> 
> -- 
> http://fam-tille.de
> 
> 

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Back to linux.debian.maint.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> - 2022-12-21 19:30 +0100
  Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2022-12-22 01:20 +0100
    Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Nicholas D Steeves <sten@debian.org> - 2022-12-22 02:30 +0100
      Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? "M. Zhou" <lumin@debian.org> - 2022-12-22 06:10 +0100
      Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2022-12-28 02:00 +0100
        Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2022-12-30 10:30 +0100
          Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2023-01-05 14:00 +0100
            Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2023-01-07 09:10 +0100
              Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Andrius Merkys <merkys@debian.org> - 2023-01-07 09:30 +0100
                Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Andrius Merkys <merkys@debian.org> - 2023-01-09 16:50 +0100
              Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2023-01-16 17:30 +0100
                Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2023-01-17 01:10 +0100
                Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Andreas Tille <tille@debian.org> - 2023-01-17 07:50 +0100
            Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Étienne Mollier <emollier@emlwks999.eu> - 2023-01-10 22:50 +0100
    Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2022-12-22 13:50 +0100
      Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Timo Röhling <roehling@debian.org> - 2022-12-22 14:00 +0100
        Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2022-12-22 19:50 +0100
          Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? "M. Zhou" <lumin@debian.org> - 2022-12-23 00:30 +0100
            Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? "M. Zhou" <lumin@debian.org> - 2022-12-23 00:40 +0100
          Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Graham Inggs <ginggs@debian.org> - 2022-12-26 21:30 +0100
  Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Graham Inggs <ginggs@debian.org> - 2022-12-26 21:50 +0100

csiph-web