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

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #11652 > unrolled thread

Re: Removing py2 support from python-xattr

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

  Re: Removing py2 support from python-xattr Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-08-25 02:10 +0200
    Re: Removing py2 support from python-xattr Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2019-08-25 10:30 +0200

#11652 — Re: Removing py2 support from python-xattr

On Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:28:10 PM EDT Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I came across python-xattr, which I know well because it's used in
> Swift. I went to investigate it's reverse dependencies, and discovered
> that it's py2 version is only used by calendarserver, which itself, is
> py2 only upstream, and is full of py2-ism that would need to be fixed
> (and the work is really non-trivial and huge).
> 
> Since we decided to work on leaf packages only, what to do in this case,
> as it doesn't look like calendarserver will be fixed anytime soon? Shall
> we wait? For how long? I've of course filed a bug against
> calendarserver, but I'm quite sure this wont be enough to get things moving.
> 
> Please, let's generalize and see the whole picture. There will be A LOT
> more cases like this one, and I don't think that waiting forever will
> solve the situation. It is my opinion that we should set a kind of
> policy (ie: wait for how long?) and then act...

If it were me, I'd go ahead and file a serious bug indicating a dependency of 
the package is about to be removed.

Scott K

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#11661

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

On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 08:03:55PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Saturday, August 24, 2019 6:28:10 PM EDT Thomas Goirand wrote:
> > Please, let's generalize and see the whole picture. There will be A LOT
> > more cases like this one, and I don't think that waiting forever will
> > solve the situation. It is my opinion that we should set a kind of
> > policy (ie: wait for how long?) and then act...
> 
> If it were me, I'd go ahead and file a serious bug indicating a dependency of 
> the package is about to be removed.

And then, once it is autorm from testing without the maintainer saying
anything, open an RM bug for the rdep.

-- 
regards,
                        Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540      .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org                             : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri                  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web