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

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #11816

Re: Packages depending on python-testtools are now RC: is bzr still a thing?

Show key headers only | View raw

On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 23:39:46 +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> reverse-depends takes sometimes forever in Sid for a reason I
> can't figure out. And if I'm not mistaking, that's the only tool we have
> that can check reverse dependencies in a meaningful way. Or is there a
> better way? I've read others using a dak command, how?

Log in to the developer-accessible archive copy
(mirror.ftp-master.debian.org, currently hosted on coccia.debian.org),
and use "dak rm -R -n" (aka "dak rm --rdep-check --no-action"). Use
"dak rm --help" for help.

For the Python-2-removal transition, probably the most common query
will be to ask what would be broken if you removed all the Python 2
binary packages from a source package, but kept the rest of the source
package. For example, looking at https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/pygobject
I can see that it builds binary packages python-gi, python-gi-cairo,
python-gi-dbg, python-gi-dev, and python-gobject for Python 2 (plus some
Python 3 binary packages which are not interesting for this transition),
so I tried this:

    $ dak rm -R -n -b python-gi python-gi-cairo python-gi-dbg python-gi-dev python-gobject

and got this result:

    Will remove the following packages from unstable:

    python-gi |   3.34.0-1 | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x
    python-gi-cairo |   3.34.0-1 | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x
    python-gi-dbg |   3.34.0-1 | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x
    python-gi-dev |   3.34.0-1 | amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, s390x
    python-gobject |   3.34.0-1 | all

    Maintainer: Debian GNOME Maintainers <pkg-gnome-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>

    ------------------- Reason -------------------

    ----------------------------------------------

    Checking reverse dependencies...
    # Broken Depends:
    autokey: autokey-gtk
    avahi: avahi-discover
    ...

    # Broken Build-Depends:
    accerciser: python-gi-dev (>= 3.4.2)
    alacarte: python-gi-dev
    avahi: python-gi-dev
    ...

    Dependency problem found.

How to interpret this: if we removed python-gi, python-gi-cairo,
python-gi-dbg, python-gi-dev and python-gobject, then it would break
Depends in binary packages autokey-gtk (from src:autokey), avahi-discover
(from src:avahi) and so on; and would also break Build-Depends in
accerciser, alacarte and so on. (I stopped quoting after "A" here.)

If there is no dependency that would prevent the packages' removal, instead
you would see:

    Checking reverse dependencies...
    No dependency problem found.

To evaluate what would happen if entire source packages were
removed, leave off the -b (aka --binary), and the package names will
be interpreted as source instead of binary packages. For example,
https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/pygobject-2 is Python-2-only (it's a legacy
version of https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/pygobject) so you might run this:

    $ dak rm -R -n pygobject-2

When doing QA work and recommending that an unmaintained/broken source
package is to be removed, the form without -b is usually the right one
to use.

    smcv

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

Thread

Re: Packages depending on python-testtools are now RC: is bzr still a thing? Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-09-15 01:20 +0200
  Re: Packages depending on python-testtools are now RC: is bzr still a thing? Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer@jelmer.uk> - 2019-09-15 11:10 +0200
    Re: Packages depending on python-testtools are now RC: is bzr still a thing? Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2019-09-15 14:30 +0200
      Re: Packages depending on python-testtools are now RC: is bzr still a thing? Jelmer Vernooij <jelmer@jelmer.uk> - 2019-09-15 17:40 +0200
      Re: Packages depending on python-testtools are now RC: is bzr still  a thing? Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2019-09-16 00:40 +0200
        Re: Packages depending on python-testtools are now RC: is bzr still  a thing? Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2019-09-16 09:20 +0200
          A possibly easier way to check dependencies for 2Removal? "Rebecca N. Palmer" <rebecca_palmer@zoho.com> - 2019-09-18 00:20 +0200
            Re: A possibly easier way to check dependencies for 2Removal? Diane Trout <diane@ghic.org> - 2019-09-18 19:40 +0200
            Re: A possibly easier way to check dependencies for 2Removal? "Rebecca N. Palmer" <rebecca_palmer@zoho.com> - 2019-10-26 20:30 +0200

csiph-web