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

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #11454 > unrolled thread

dropping python2 [was Re: scientific python stack transitions]

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  dropping python2 [was Re: scientific python stack transitions] Drew Parsons <dparsons@debian.org> - 2019-07-07 17:00 +0200
    Re: dropping python2 [was Re: scientific python stack transitions] Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> - 2019-07-07 17:40 +0200
      Re: dropping python2 [was Re: scientific python stack transitions] Drew Parsons <dparsons@debian.org> - 2019-07-07 19:30 +0200
      Re: dropping python2 [was Re: scientific python stack transitions] Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-07-08 00:40 +0200
      RE:dropping python2 [was Re: scientific python stack transitions] PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel <frederic-emmanuel.picca@synchrotron-soleil.fr> - 2019-07-08 09:40 +0200
        Re: dropping python2 [was Re: scientific python stack transitions] Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2019-07-08 09:50 +0200
        Re: dropping python2 [was Re: scientific python stack transitions] Elena ``of Valhalla'' <valhalla-d@trueelena.org> - 2019-07-08 10:20 +0200
          Re: dropping python2 [was Re: scientific python stack transitions] "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org> - 2019-07-09 22:50 +0200
      Re: dropping python2 [was Re: scientific python stack transitions] Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org> - 2019-07-08 10:20 +0200
        Re: dropping python2 [was Re: scientific python stack transitions] Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> - 2019-07-16 17:10 +0200
          Re: dropping python2 [was Re: scientific python stack transitions] Andrey Rahmatullin <wrar@debian.org> - 2019-07-16 17:30 +0200
            Re: <DKIM> Re: dropping python2 [was Re: scientific python stack  transitions] Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> - 2019-07-16 17:50 +0200
              Re: <DKIM> Re: dropping python2 [was Re: scientific python stack transitions] Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-07-17 02:50 +0200
          Re: dropping python2 [was Re: scientific python stack transitions] Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> - 2019-07-16 17:30 +0200
            Re: dropping python2 [was Re: scientific python stack transitions] Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> - 2019-07-16 17:50 +0200

#11454 — dropping python2 [was Re: scientific python stack transitions]

On 2019-07-07 22:46, Mo Zhou wrote:
> Hi science team,
> 
> By the way, when do we start dropping python2 support?
> The upstreams of the whole python scientific computing
> stack had already started dropping it.

Good question.  I think it is on the agenda this cycle, but 
debian-python will have the call on it.

Drew

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#11455

On 07.07.19 16:55, Drew Parsons wrote:
> On 2019-07-07 22:46, Mo Zhou wrote:
>> Hi science team,
>>
>> By the way, when do we start dropping python2 support?
>> The upstreams of the whole python scientific computing
>> stack had already started dropping it.
> 
> Good question.  I think it is on the agenda this cycle, but debian-python will
> have the call on it.

you can start dropping it now, however please don't drop anything yet with
reverse dependencies.  So leaf packages first.

Matthias

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

#11459

On 2019-07-07 23:31, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 07.07.19 16:55, Drew Parsons wrote:
>> On 2019-07-07 22:46, Mo Zhou wrote:
>>> Hi science team,
>>> 
>>> By the way, when do we start dropping python2 support?
>>> The upstreams of the whole python scientific computing
>>> stack had already started dropping it.
>> 
>> Good question.  I think it is on the agenda this cycle, but 
>> debian-python will
>> have the call on it.
> 
> you can start dropping it now, however please don't drop anything yet 
> with
> reverse dependencies.  So leaf packages first.

That a sensible order.  It puts packages on the same footing as new 
packages, which are already forbidden by lintian from building python2 
packages.

Drew

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

#11460

On Sunday, July 7, 2019 6:13:45 PM EDT Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 7/7/19 5:31 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > On 07.07.19 16:55, Drew Parsons wrote:
> >> On 2019-07-07 22:46, Mo Zhou wrote:
> >>> Hi science team,
> >>> 
> >>> By the way, when do we start dropping python2 support?
> >>> The upstreams of the whole python scientific computing
> >>> stack had already started dropping it.
> >> 
> >> Good question.  I think it is on the agenda this cycle, but debian-python
> >> will have the call on it.
> > 
> > you can start dropping it now, however please don't drop anything yet with
> > reverse dependencies.  So leaf packages first.
> > 
> > Matthias
> 
> I'm sorry, but I think I need to contest this. Doing things in order,
> first leaf, then go all the way back, will take too long, and this is
> IMO unnecessary effort. Older binary packages will anyway stay in the
> archive as long as they are needed, and no FTP hint is added (please
> correct me if I'm wrong here... but that's what I saw in the past).
> 
> Also, those who aren't doing the work of switching to Py2 will need to
> be kicked away anyway.
> 
> You've done some pretty destructive transitions yourself for other
> stuff, so why should we bother on this simple case?
> 
> Last, a 2 years cycle to get rid of all traces of Python 2 *will* take
> some time, maybe more than we can even think of, so we'd better take
> some shortcuts if we can.

Are you 100% certain that there isn't some small subset of python2 packages we 
will end up needing for bullseye?  If not, this is not a good suggestion.

Scott K

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

#11461

it would be nice, if the python2 packages could be skipped in bulleye but not for backports in buster.

Is it something which could be envision ?

Fred

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

#11462

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

On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 07:16:01AM +0000, PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel wrote:
> it would be nice, if the python2 packages could be skipped in bulleye but not for backports in buster.
> 
> Is it something which could be envision ?
Not in the main backports, maybe in -sloppy. And it will be hard or
impossible for some packages, I think.

-- 
WBR, wRAR

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

#11464

On 2019-07-08 at 07:16:01 +0000, PICCA Frederic-Emmanuel wrote:
> it would be nice, if the python2 packages could be skipped in bulleye but not for backports in buster.
> 
> Is it something which could be envision ?

I don't think it would be accepted by backports, since it goes against
the requirement that stuff in backports is in testing (and meant to
remain there when it becomes stable).

-- 
Elena ``of Valhalla''

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

#11468

On 2019-07-08 10:00, Elena ``of Valhalla'' wrote:
> I don't think it would be accepted by backports, since it goes against
> the requirement that stuff in backports is in testing (and meant to
> remain there when it becomes stable).

I'm not sure, but building an additional binary package from the
same source package might be OK for bpo. Of course, d/control
etc. would differ, but that's common.

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

#11463

Thomas Goirand writes:
> On 7/7/19 5:31 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> you can start dropping it now, however please don't drop anything yet with
>> reverse dependencies.  So leaf packages first.
>
> I'm sorry, but I think I need to contest this. Doing things in order,
> first leaf, then go all the way back, will take too long, and this is
> IMO unnecessary effort. Older binary packages will anyway stay in the
> archive as long as they are needed, and no FTP hint is added (please
> correct me if I'm wrong here... but that's what I saw in the past).

Packages usually don't migrate to testing if they cause packages to be
uninstallable which will happen if you start breaking reverse
dependencies.  Will that be the case here?

> You've done some pretty destructive transitions yourself for other
> stuff, so why should we bother on this simple case?

Removing an entire language isn't a simple case, even less so when
doesn't mean we just remove all packages written in said language (as
the source packages all build for a different language as well).

Ansgar

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

#11478

I lost some of this thread - should we request a transition
from the release team? I was looking for the list of blockers
to dropping Python 2 and couldn't find anything except this
thread (where we're still figuring out what to do, of course)

I do want to keep in mind that Python 2 is EOL and dead
in 5 months, 15 days and 12 hours.

Much love!
  paultag

On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 7:52 PM Stéphane Blondon <sblondon@debian.org> wrote:
>
> On 08/07/2019 17:58, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > Maybe we can also do a mass-bugfilling after a period we can discuss
> > (probably during Debconf?).
>
> The bug report would say 'This package will be removed in x months if it
> will be still python2 only'?
>
> The targets would be every python2-only packages or limited to packages
> with reverse-dependancy?
>
>
> Stéphane
>


-- 
:wq

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

#11479

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

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:52:14AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> I lost some of this thread - should we request a transition
> from the release team? I was looking for the list of blockers
> to dropping Python 2 and couldn't find anything except this
> thread (where we're still figuring out what to do, of course)
> 
> I do want to keep in mind that Python 2 is EOL and dead
> in 5 months, 15 days and 12 hours.
Python 2 is included in buster and so will be supported for several
years.

-- 
WBR, wRAR

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

#11481 — Re: <DKIM> Re: dropping python2 [was Re: scientific python stack transitions]

On 16.07.19 17:31, Julien Puydt wrote:
> Le 16/07/2019 à 17:21, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
>> Python 2 is included in buster and so will be supported for several
>> years.
>>
> 
> The starting point of the thread was :
> 1. Ok, buster has Python 2 so even if upstream drops it, we will still
> support it for the years to come for our users ;
> 2. but the next stable will come out after upstream has EOL-ed Python 2,
> so we must kick it out as soon as possible from testing+unstable,

> because there's no way we'll support Python 2 in that next stable!

no, that's your interpretation, not mine.  If an important enough application
still needs it, we should ship it.

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

#11484 — Re: <DKIM> Re: dropping python2 [was Re: scientific python stack transitions]

On July 16, 2019 3:42:47 PM UTC, Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> wrote:
>On 16.07.19 17:31, Julien Puydt wrote:
>> Le 16/07/2019 à 17:21, Andrey Rahmatullin a écrit :
>>> Python 2 is included in buster and so will be supported for several
>>> years.
>>>
>> 
>> The starting point of the thread was :
>> 1. Ok, buster has Python 2 so even if upstream drops it, we will
>still
>> support it for the years to come for our users ;
>> 2. but the next stable will come out after upstream has EOL-ed Python
>2,
>> so we must kick it out as soon as possible from testing+unstable,
>
>> because there's no way we'll support Python 2 in that next stable!
>
>no, that's your interpretation, not mine.  If an important enough
>application
>still needs it, we should ship it.

I completely agree.  The reason I put in for a tracker is to make it easier to see where people can focus to start burning down the stack.  Not because I am confident we'll get there this cycle.

Scott K

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

#11480

On 16.07.19 16:52, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> I lost some of this thread - should we request a transition
> from the release team? I was looking for the list of blockers
> to dropping Python 2 and couldn't find anything except this
> thread (where we're still figuring out what to do, of course)

#931659

> I do want to keep in mind that Python 2 is EOL and dead
> in 5 months, 15 days and 12 hours.

yes, that's the upstream status, not the distro status.

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

#11482

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 11:20 AM Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> wrote:
>
> On 16.07.19 16:52, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> > I lost some of this thread - should we request a transition
> > from the release team? I was looking for the list of blockers
> > to dropping Python 2 and couldn't find anything except this
> > thread (where we're still figuring out what to do, of course)
>
> #931659

Perfect, thank you!

>
> > I do want to keep in mind that Python 2 is EOL and dead
> > in 5 months, 15 days and 12 hours.
>
> yes, that's the upstream status, not the distro status.

Does this mean we plan to commit to providing security updates
to Python 2 alone? Do we have the bandwidth and willing maintainers?

Thank you!
  paultag

-- 
:wq

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web