Path: csiph.com!1.us.feeder.erje.net!3.us.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!news.servidellagleba.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Thomas Goirand Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python,linux.debian.devel.release Subject: Re: Python 3.11 for bookworm? Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 01:10:01 +0100 Message-ID: References: X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Tue Jan 17 00:05:13 2023 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.507 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FOURLA=0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.097, 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/102.6.0 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: archive/latest/20710 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/4223d7f3-2107-57ea-2de3-54e3c95caa8c@debian.org Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 72 Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Cc: Debian Release X-Original-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 01:04:50 +0100 X-Original-Message-ID: <4223d7f3-2107-57ea-2de3-54e3c95caa8c@debian.org> X-Original-References: <1fc30086-582e-36e1-f530-39323e85cd8d@ubuntu.com> <87ili4jksa.fsf@DigitalMercury.freeddns.org> <191b25f5-2225-3b42-6f83-a46d54daff1f@debian.org> <7ecb3bd3-b70e-71a4-03e9-631629a20e24@debian.org> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:14830 linux.debian.devel.release:112949 On 1/16/23 17:23, Andreas Tille wrote: > Am Sat, Jan 07, 2023 at 09:05:21AM +0100 schrieb Andreas Tille: >>>> 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 saw the above 2 were fixed. > I'd like to add > > #1027851 [src:pytorch] FTBFS with Python 3.11 as default version > > also with lots of rdepends. So we're back with one single bug. I remember seeing something similar in another package ... (scratching my head...). The latest version of the upstream code has some modifications to this broken Stream.cpp, have you tried to apply them? Do you have more to share? It's harder to help if you don't ask for it. IMO, feel free to give a full list of problematic packages in this list, so others may help. > I did not received any response to my "small" list. What does this > mean for the transition to 3.11 process? As much as I know, we're moving toward having Python 3.11 only in Bookworm. I'm not the person driving it though, and I am not in the best position to make such choice, but I support it (as I would prefer having the nice enhancements of Python 3.11 rather than lagging behind). Hopefully, I wont regret it and wont find more failures in "my" packages. >>>> 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? All of my packages hopefully always test with all available versions, and most run autopkgtest. So I was warned early of Py 3.11 failures. They are all fixed, as much as I know (no opened RC bug remaining...). And no, forcing Python 3.10 is *NOT* an option, one must fix failures in Python 3.11. >> 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. I'm sad to read this. Hopefully, this is truth only for some of the packages you care, and the vast majority of the packages are fine? I'm unfortunately not in a good position to tell (I didn't run any survey of broken packages...). Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)