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

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #10743 > unrolled thread

Report from the Python BoF @ DebConf18

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.maint.python

Contents

  Report from the Python BoF @ DebConf18 Nicolas Dandrimont <olasd@debian.org> - 2018-08-02 17:30 +0200
    git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2018-08-03 05:30 +0200
      Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org> - 2018-08-03 06:00 +0200
        Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2018-08-03 06:40 +0200
          Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org> - 2018-08-03 08:30 +0200
            Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2018-08-03 09:10 +0200
              Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org> - 2018-08-03 10:20 +0200
                Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org> - 2018-08-03 10:30 +0200
      Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2018-08-03 15:40 +0200
      Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Ruben Undheim <lists@beebeetle.com> - 2018-08-04 09:40 +0200
        Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2018-08-08 09:20 +0200
          Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> - 2018-08-08 13:40 +0200
            Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2018-08-08 16:50 +0200
              Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> - 2018-08-08 21:30 +0200
                Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2018-08-09 10:20 +0200
                  Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2018-08-09 11:00 +0200
                  Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2018-08-09 12:20 +0200
                  Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Brian May <bam@debian.org> - 2018-08-09 13:00 +0200
            Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Brian May <bam@debian.org> - 2018-08-08 23:50 +0200
          Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Ruben Undheim <lists@beebeetle.com> - 2018-08-08 16:00 +0200
            Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2018-08-08 17:00 +0200
            Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) Brian May <bam@debian.org> - 2018-08-09 00:00 +0200
      Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE] Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2018-08-08 16:30 +0200
        Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE] Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2018-08-10 22:30 +0200
          Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE] Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2018-08-11 16:20 +0200
            Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE] eamanu15 <emmanuelarias30@gmail.com> - 2018-08-12 15:30 +0200
              Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE] Dmitry Shachnev <mitya57@debian.org> - 2018-08-12 20:30 +0200
                Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE] eamanu15 <emmanuelarias30@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 03:10 +0200
                  Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE] Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2018-08-15 03:20 +0200
                  Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE] Lars Kruse <lists@sumpfralle.de> - 2018-08-15 04:20 +0200
                    Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE] Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2018-08-15 09:10 +0200
                      Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE] Pierre-Elliott Bécue <becue@crans.org> - 2018-08-15 13:00 +0200
                        Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE] Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2018-08-15 13:20 +0200
          Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE] Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> - 2018-08-11 16:20 +0200
    Re: Report from the Python BoF @ DebConf18 Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2018-09-19 15:40 +0200
      Re: Report from the Python BoF @ DebConf18 Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2018-09-19 17:40 +0200
      Upstreams dropping Python 2 support (Was: Re: Report from the Python  BoF @ DebConf18) Dmitry Shachnev <mitya57@debian.org> - 2018-09-27 12:00 +0200
        Re: Upstreams dropping Python 2 support Ole Streicher <olebole@debian.org> - 2018-09-27 12:20 +0200
          Re: Upstreams dropping Python 2 support Dmitry Shachnev <mitya57@debian.org> - 2018-09-27 13:30 +0200
          Re: Upstreams dropping Python 2 support Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2018-09-27 15:20 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#10774 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change)

On 08/08/2018 03:55 PM, Ruben Undheim wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> The problem with git-debrebase will be the same as with git-dpm. As soon
>> as you try to upgrade / merge a new upstream release, you dive into a
>> rebase/conflict nightmare.
> 
> So in other words, you prefer to solve the same conflicts manually with
> quilt/quilt refresh

Yes. Whenever a patch cannot be applied, generally, applying it manually
to do the rebase is much easier than with just git. ie: just use patch,
then manage whatever's left in the .rej files, then dpkg-source --commit
the result. In my experience, it is much easier to see what's going on
rather than solving a merge conflict with git.

> There is no nightmare unless there are patch conflicts.

Of course. But it is these cases which we care about here.

> All the tools will
> in that case give you a nightmare in one way or the other. It is just that some
> of them attempt to handle it a bit more elegantly than the others.

I don't think we care if it is elegant. We care efficiency,
manageability, and above all: to always understand what's going on.

> For people familar with git (and rebase) - the nightmare should not be bad
> at all with git-debrebase.

I have experienced all sorts of weird situation where it was really hard
to figure out what was coming from before the rebase, and after it, just
by reading the source code. It's often a lot easier to just read the
patch, and try to manually modify the code to do what the patch suggests
... or not! That's the important bit. Be able to see what's going on and
take a wise decision.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10777 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change)

Ruben Undheim <lists@beebeetle.com> writes:

> There is no nightmare unless there are patch conflicts.

The one case where you could have a "nightmare" is:

1. Maintainer A updates package to latest upstream version.
2. Maintainer A uploads packages to Debian, and it is accepted.
3. Maintainer A forgets to push changes to git. Or doesn't push all
branches/tags as required.
4. Maintainer B finds package, and updates to latest upstream version
(which could be later then what maintainer A saw).
5. Maintainer B pushes changes to git.
6. Somebody complains that fixes that where included in the first
version have now gone missing.

7. Maintainer A pushes his changes, find they are rejected, and wrongly
does a "push -f", loosing the changes from maintainer B.

OR

7. Maintainer A realizes what has happened, has two sets of patches
against two different upstream versions, and somehow needs to reconcile
them.

etc, etc.

However, I don't know of any workflow that would make the issues here
any easier.

Moral of the story, always make sure you pull changes (from all
branches) before starting to work, just to make sure nobody else has
made changes. Plus always make sure you push changes (all required
branches, e.g. "git push origin : --tags") after you finish work.

Easy to forget however.
-- 
Brian May <bam@debian.org>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10772 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

pá 3. 8. 2018 v 5:06 odesílatel Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> napsal:

> 1. convert git-dpm -> gbp
>

this is done.

-- 
Best regards
 Ondřej Nový

Email: novy@ondrej.org
PGP: 3D98 3C52 EB85 980C 46A5  6090 3573 1255 9D1E 064B

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10784 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE]

On August 8, 2018 2:10:59 PM UTC, Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>pá 3. 8. 2018 v 5:06 odesílatel Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> napsal:
>
>> 1. convert git-dpm -> gbp
>>
>
>this is done.

Thanks.  I'm glad more is going on than people arguing about what's wrong with the tool we aren't going to use anymore.

What branch layout did you use?

Scott K

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10789 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE]

On August 11, 2018 1:54:41 PM UTC, Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>pá 10. 8. 2018 v 22:29 odesílatel Scott Kitterman
><debian@kitterman.com>
>napsal:
>
>> Thanks.  I'm glad more is going on than people arguing about what's
>wrong
>> with the tool we aren't going to use anymore.
>>
>
>cool :).
>
>What branch layout did you use?
>>
>
>I kept original branch names, renaming them is "phase 2".

I hope you will stick with what's in the wiki:

https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ#Git_Branch_Names

That's what I've been following when I hand converted repositories of packages I was updating.

Scott K

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10791 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hello Everybody!

Its a good idea use gbp. Its more easy to use.

Are there some step by step of the use?

Regards!

El sáb., 11 de ago. de 2018 a la(s) 11:16, Scott Kitterman <
debian@kitterman.com> escribió:

>
>
> On August 11, 2018 1:54:41 PM UTC, Ondrej Novy <novy@ondrej.org> wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >pá 10. 8. 2018 v 22:29 odesílatel Scott Kitterman
> ><debian@kitterman.com>
> >napsal:
> >
> >> Thanks.  I'm glad more is going on than people arguing about what's
> >wrong
> >> with the tool we aren't going to use anymore.
> >>
> >
> >cool :).
> >
> >What branch layout did you use?
> >>
> >
> >I kept original branch names, renaming them is "phase 2".
>
> I hope you will stick with what's in the wiki:
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ#Git_Branch_Names
>
> That's what I've been following when I hand converted repositories of
> packages I was updating.
>
> Scott K
>
> --
Arias Emmanuel
https://www.linkedin.com/in/emmanuel-arias-437a6a8a
http://eamanu.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10792 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 10:20:53AM -0300, eamanu15 wrote:
> Hello Everybody!
>
> Its a good idea use gbp. Its more easy to use.
>
> Are there some step by step of the use?

There was a link in Scott’s mail:

https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ

This page covers the most popular operations you would need to do.

--
Dmitry Shachnev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10797 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi!

What's up with the page? https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ

Regards!


El dom., 12 de ago. de 2018 a la(s) 15:21, Dmitry Shachnev <
mitya57@debian.org> escribió:

> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 10:20:53AM -0300, eamanu15 wrote:
> > Hello Everybody!
> >
> > Its a good idea use gbp. Its more easy to use.
> >
> > Are there some step by step of the use?
>
> There was a link in Scott’s mail:
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ
>
> This page covers the most popular operations you would need to do.
>
> --
> Dmitry Shachnev
>
-- 
Arias Emmanuel
https://www.linkedin.com/in/emmanuel-arias-437a6a8a
http://eamanu.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10798 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE]

It appears to have been deleted.

Scott K

On August 15, 2018 1:01:50 AM UTC, eamanu15 <emmanuelarias30@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi!
>
>What's up with the page? https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ
>
>Regards!
>
>
>El dom., 12 de ago. de 2018 a la(s) 15:21, Dmitry Shachnev <
>mitya57@debian.org> escribió:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 10:20:53AM -0300, eamanu15 wrote:
>> > Hello Everybody!
>> >
>> > Its a good idea use gbp. Its more easy to use.
>> >
>> > Are there some step by step of the use?
>>
>> There was a link in Scott’s mail:
>>
>> https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ
>>
>> This page covers the most popular operations you would need to do.
>>
>> --
>> Dmitry Shachnev
>>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10799 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE]

Hello,


Am Tue, 14 Aug 2018 22:01:50 -0300
schrieb eamanu15 <emmanuelarias30@gmail.com>:

> What's up with the page? https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ

thankfully it was merged by Ondrej into
https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackaging.

See the details:
 https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackaging?action=diff&rev2=79&rev1=77

Cheers,
Lars

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10800 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

st 15. 8. 2018 v 4:12 odesílatel Lars Kruse <lists@sumpfralle.de> napsal:

> > What's up with the page? https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ
>
> thankfully it was merged by Ondrej into
> https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackaging.
>

yes I merged it "back" to original page. If you know how to redirect
GitPackagingPQ to original page, please go ahead.

Thanks.

-- 
Best regards
 Ondřej Nový

Email: novy@ondrej.org
PGP: 3D98 3C52 EB85 980C 46A5  6090 3573 1255 9D1E 064B

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10801 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Le mercredi 15 août 2018 à 08:43:28+0200, Ondrej Novy a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> st 15. 8. 2018 v 4:12 odesílatel Lars Kruse <lists@sumpfralle.de> napsal:
> 
>     > What's up with the page? https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ
> 
>     thankfully it was merged by Ondrej into
>     https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackaging.
> 
> 
> yes I merged it "back" to original page. If you know how to redirect
> GitPackagingPQ to original page, please go ahead.
> 
> Thanks.

Hi, Ondřej,

It's as easy as creating a new page at
https://wiki.debian.org/Python/GitPackagingPQ, and to put on the first line
the following code: "#redirect Python/GitPackaging" without the quotes.

It's done, now. :)

Cheers!

-- 
Pierre-Elliott Bécue
GPG: 9AE0 4D98 6400 E3B6 7528  F493 0D44 2664 1949 74E2
It's far easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10804 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi Pierre-Elliott,

st 15. 8. 2018 v 12:50 odesílatel Pierre-Elliott Bécue <becue@crans.org>
napsal:

> It's done, now. :)
>

thanks a lot.

-- 
Best regards
 Ondřej Nový

Email: novy@ondrej.org
PGP: 3D98 3C52 EB85 980C 46A5  6090 3573 1255 9D1E 064B

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10790 — Re: git-dpm -> gbp conversion (mass-change) [phase 1 DONE]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

pá 10. 8. 2018 v 22:29 odesílatel Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>
napsal:

> Thanks.  I'm glad more is going on than people arguing about what's wrong
> with the tool we aren't going to use anymore.
>

cool :).

What branch layout did you use?
>

I kept original branch names, renaming them is "phase 2".

-- 
Best regards
 Ondřej Nový

Email: novy@ondrej.org
PGP: 3D98 3C52 EB85 980C 46A5  6090 3573 1255 9D1E 064B

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10916

> This also means finding
> solutions for edge-cases such as astroid, whose 2.0 branch is the only to
> support Py3.7, but also drops 2.x support.

this is becoming less of an edge-case and more the current situation
of several "core" python modules: drop python2 support (eventually
maintaining a LTS-like old release around for py2) in favor of a pure
python3 codebase. Latest example is matplotlib 3.0 released yday which
dropped python2 support (maintained only in the 2.x branch, which will
receive only critical fixes), and numpy will release soon a py3k-only
version.

What did the team decide on this front? duplicating packages is not
always feasible (both from an archive and from a maintainership
perspective)

-- 
Sandro "morph" Tosi
My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
G+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+SandroTosi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10917

On 09/19/2018 03:32 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> This also means finding
>> solutions for edge-cases such as astroid, whose 2.0 branch is the only to
>> support Py3.7, but also drops 2.x support.
> 
> this is becoming less of an edge-case and more the current situation
> of several "core" python modules: drop python2 support (eventually
> maintaining a LTS-like old release around for py2) in favor of a pure
> python3 codebase. Latest example is matplotlib 3.0 released yday which
> dropped python2 support (maintained only in the 2.x branch, which will
> receive only critical fixes), and numpy will release soon a py3k-only
> version.
> 
> What did the team decide on this front? duplicating packages is not
> always feasible (both from an archive and from a maintainership
> perspective)

Unless you've found hundreds of cases, it's very much ok to do package
duplication for these few cases where we need 2 different source
packages, and only for the next following months that we have before the
freeze.

How many cases are we talking about? Not even a full dozen?

If you can't handle the workload, it's also ok to ask for help, but that
doesn't seem to be your way. I'm kind of disappointed to see no answer
to #902631 from you in this regard, leaving the bug open for nearly 3
months now. Could you at least let Nicolas do the upload?

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10941 — Upstreams dropping Python 2 support (Was: Re: Report from the Python BoF @ DebConf18)

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 09:32:23AM -0400, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> > This also means finding
> > solutions for edge-cases such as astroid, whose 2.0 branch is the only to
> > support Py3.7, but also drops 2.x support.
>
> this is becoming less of an edge-case and more the current situation
> of several "core" python modules: drop python2 support (eventually
> maintaining a LTS-like old release around for py2) in favor of a pure
> python3 codebase. Latest example is matplotlib 3.0 released yday which
> dropped python2 support (maintained only in the 2.x branch, which will
> receive only critical fixes), and numpy will release soon a py3k-only
> version.
>
> What did the team decide on this front? duplicating packages is not
> always feasible (both from an archive and from a maintainership
> perspective)

I think for “popular” packages duplication is unavoidable.

Sphinx 2.0 will also drop Python 2.7 support, so I am going to make the
“sphinx” source package ship only python3-sphinx, and introduce the new
source package (“sphinx-python2”?) which will ship only python-sphinx.

Eventually I will also do a mass bug filing, but with the current 314
python-sphinx reverse build-depends it is clear that I will have to ship
sphinx-python2 for quite some time.

--
Dmitry Shachnev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10942 — Re: Upstreams dropping Python 2 support

Dmitry Shachnev <mitya57@debian.org> writes:
> Sphinx 2.0 will also drop Python 2.7 support, so I am going to make the
> “sphinx” source package ship only python3-sphinx, and introduce the new
> source package (“sphinx-python2”?) which will ship only python-sphinx.
>
> Eventually I will also do a mass bug filing, but with the current 314
> python-sphinx reverse build-depends it is clear that I will have to ship
> sphinx-python2 for quite some time.

Is there a reason why one would use Python2-sphinx instead of the Python
3 version? How often in these 314 cases it is not just used as an
executable in d/rules?

Cheers

Ole

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10943 — Re: Upstreams dropping Python 2 support

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 11:58:28AM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Is there a reason why one would use Python2-sphinx instead of the Python
> 3 version? How often in these 314 cases it is not just used as an
> executable in d/rules?

One possible reason is when sphinx.ext.autodoc is in use for documenting
Python code, and that code is Python 2 only.

Also there may be custom Sphinx extensions written in Python 2.

--
Dmitry Shachnev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10945 — Re: Upstreams dropping Python 2 support

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 at 11:58:28 +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Is there a reason why one would use Python2-sphinx instead of the Python
> 3 version?

src:dbus-python has more Python 2 API than Python 3 API (some objects
cease to exist in Python 3 builds). As long as python-dbus.deb exists,
it's somewhat valuable for the Python-version-independent documentation
in python-dbus-doc.deb to have been built with the Python 2 version
of sphinx.

    smcv

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.maint.python

csiph-web