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

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #11729 > unrolled thread

Python 3 transition question

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

Contents

  Python 3 transition question Martin Kelly <martin@martingkelly.com> - 2019-09-01 21:50 +0200
    Re: Python 3 transition question Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> - 2019-09-02 02:00 +0200
      Re: Python 3 transition question Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2019-09-02 06:10 +0200
        Re: Python 3 transition question Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-09-02 07:10 +0200
          Re: Python 3 transition question Martin Kelly <martin@martingkelly.com> - 2019-09-02 22:20 +0200
            Re: Python 3 transition question Martin Kelly <martin@martingkelly.com> - 2019-09-05 01:00 +0200

#11729 — Python 3 transition question

Hi,

I maintain python-gmpy and python-gmpy2, which need to transition to 
Python 3. However, they have several packages that have Suggests or 
Recommends (not a hard dependency) pointing to python-gmpy/python-gmpy2. 
These other packages appear to be Python 2 only.

Should I stop building the Python 2 versions of these packages (and 
invalidate the Suggests/Recommends of these other packages), or should I 
instead just document this issue? If I document it, where should this 
documentation go?

Thanks,
Martin

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#11730

On 01.09.19 21:48, Martin Kelly wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I maintain python-gmpy and python-gmpy2, which need to transition to Python 3. 
> However, they have several packages that have Suggests or Recommends (not a hard 
> dependency) pointing to python-gmpy/python-gmpy2. These other packages appear to 
> be Python 2 only.
> 
> Should I stop building the Python 2 versions of these packages (and invalidate 
> the Suggests/Recommends of these other packages), or should I instead just 
> document this issue? If I document it, where should this documentation go?

I would just stop building these.  And if the reverse dependencies have a 
py2removal bug itself, then comment in these issues that the 
suggested/recommended package gets removed.  If they don't have a py2removal 
bug, please file the bugs for these packages.

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

#11732

> I would just stop building these.  And if the reverse dependencies have a
> py2removal bug itself, then comment in these issues that the
> suggested/recommended package gets removed.  If they don't have a py2removal
> bug, please file the bugs for these packages.

i dont believe this is a sensible approach; for example i maintain
python-mpmath, that would be rendered uninstallable the moment
python-gmp2 is removed. Now, python-mpmath has 3 external
reverse-dependencies (just to name a couple, sagemath and simpy) that
would be then uninstallable, and so on and so forth for all their
rdeps.

Martin, i think for now the only option is to keep the py2 packages
around until we're ready to drop them (ie they have 0 rdeps).

Regards,

--
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]

#11734

On September 2, 2019 4:00:53 AM UTC, Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> wrote:
>> I would just stop building these.  And if the reverse dependencies
>have a
>> py2removal bug itself, then comment in these issues that the
>> suggested/recommended package gets removed.  If they don't have a
>py2removal
>> bug, please file the bugs for these packages.
>
>i dont believe this is a sensible approach; for example i maintain
>python-mpmath, that would be rendered uninstallable the moment
>python-gmp2 is removed. Now, python-mpmath has 3 external
>reverse-dependencies (just to name a couple, sagemath and simpy) that
>would be then uninstallable, and so on and so forth for all their
>rdeps.
>
>Martin, i think for now the only option is to keep the py2 packages
>around until we're ready to drop them (ie they have 0 rdeps).

I just checked on packages.d.o and according to it, python-gmp2 is a Suggests.  Suggests aren't installed with packages.  Unless I'm missing something, python-mpmath wouldn't become uninstallable.

IIRC, policy doesn't even require Suggests packages to exist.

I agree about keeping packages as long as they have reverse Recommends, but I think Suggests is going too far (although AIUI, missing Recommends don't make the package uninstallable either).

Scott K

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

#11740

On 9/1/19 10:07 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 
> 
> On September 2, 2019 4:00:53 AM UTC, Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> wrote:
>>> I would just stop building these.  And if the reverse dependencies
>> have a
>>> py2removal bug itself, then comment in these issues that the
>>> suggested/recommended package gets removed.  If they don't have a
>> py2removal
>>> bug, please file the bugs for these packages.
>>
>> i dont believe this is a sensible approach; for example i maintain
>> python-mpmath, that would be rendered uninstallable the moment
>> python-gmp2 is removed. Now, python-mpmath has 3 external
>> reverse-dependencies (just to name a couple, sagemath and simpy) that
>> would be then uninstallable, and so on and so forth for all their
>> rdeps.
>>
>> Martin, i think for now the only option is to keep the py2 packages
>> around until we're ready to drop them (ie they have 0 rdeps).
> 
> I just checked on packages.d.o and according to it, python-gmp2 is a Suggests.  Suggests aren't installed with packages.  Unless I'm missing something, python-mpmath wouldn't become uninstallable.
> 
> IIRC, policy doesn't even require Suggests packages to exist.
> 
> I agree about keeping packages as long as they have reverse Recommends, but I think Suggests is going too far (although AIUI, missing Recommends don't make the package uninstallable either).
> 
> Scott K
> 

If I'm summarizing correctly, it sounds like there is no policy on 
exactly what to do here. I think removing the package would be pretty 
bad, because gmpy is designed to speed up numerical libraries, and the 
performance hit without it would make many libraries really painful to 
use. Given this, perhaps the dependencies should be Recommends instead 
of Suggests.

The guidelines I saw in the bugs filed on my packages (e.g. bug #937791) 
say to "document" the reverse dependency. Where do I document this?

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

#11759

On 9/2/19 1:18 PM, Martin Kelly wrote:
> On 9/1/19 10:07 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>
>>
>> On September 2, 2019 4:00:53 AM UTC, Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> 
>> wrote:
>>>> I would just stop building these.  And if the reverse dependencies
>>> have a
>>>> py2removal bug itself, then comment in these issues that the
>>>> suggested/recommended package gets removed.  If they don't have a
>>> py2removal
>>>> bug, please file the bugs for these packages.
>>>
>>> i dont believe this is a sensible approach; for example i maintain
>>> python-mpmath, that would be rendered uninstallable the moment
>>> python-gmp2 is removed. Now, python-mpmath has 3 external
>>> reverse-dependencies (just to name a couple, sagemath and simpy) that
>>> would be then uninstallable, and so on and so forth for all their
>>> rdeps.
>>>
>>> Martin, i think for now the only option is to keep the py2 packages
>>> around until we're ready to drop them (ie they have 0 rdeps).
>>
>> I just checked on packages.d.o and according to it, python-gmp2 is a 
>> Suggests.  Suggests aren't installed with packages.  Unless I'm 
>> missing something, python-mpmath wouldn't become uninstallable.
>>
>> IIRC, policy doesn't even require Suggests packages to exist.
>>
>> I agree about keeping packages as long as they have reverse 
>> Recommends, but I think Suggests is going too far (although AIUI, 
>> missing Recommends don't make the package uninstallable either).
>>
>> Scott K
>>
> 
> If I'm summarizing correctly, it sounds like there is no policy on 
> exactly what to do here. I think removing the package would be pretty 
> bad, because gmpy is designed to speed up numerical libraries, and the 
> performance hit without it would make many libraries really painful to 
> use. Given this, perhaps the dependencies should be Recommends instead 
> of Suggests.
> 
> The guidelines I saw in the bugs filed on my packages (e.g. bug #937791) 
> say to "document" the reverse dependency. Where do I document this?

(ping). I'd like to resolve the bugs I have on my packages and am not 
sure yet how best to proceed.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web