On 2019-09-03 13:50:41, Noah Meyerhans wrote: > On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 10:24:24AM +0100, kuLa wrote: > > > on my side I would have no objections with a removal. > > > > Should we actively ask for removal or wait till normal bugs will become RC and > > removal for all py2 packages is going to be compulsory? > > I personally am ok with both. > > In my experience, early removal is preferable. It gives users an > indication that they should be looking for alternatives now, while > things are still reasonably safe to use. They can migrate in their own > time frame. Whereas if we wait until a (possibly security related) RC > bug, the transition is much more abrupt for the users. I think above adheres to 'fail quickly' idea which I like, In such case I think we should request removal of euca2ools from sid and testing soon. > The big question to me is whether the packages should be removed from > (old)stable. In general, I'd say yes for the same reasons as above. By > keeping the packages in the archive, we are presenting a level of > support for them that we may not actually be prepared to meet. I'm not convinced that removal from stable (even more from oldstable) is a good idea. It's going to disrupt functionality of the systems for users and create unexpected (in stable) pain point. As far as I know python2 will be supported by Debian through the Buster life cycle thus py2 tolls should operate fairly securely as long as Buster is supported. Probably we also should a keep this in mind for Bullseye release notes. -- |_|0|_| | |_|_|0| "Panta rei" | |0|0|0| -------- kuLa -------- | gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 0x686930DD58C338B3 3DF1 A4DF C732 4688 38BC F121 6869 30DD 58C3 38B3
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature