Re: Mass filing on Python 3.7 async module import?
On 07/09/2018 11:03 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 02:33:18PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> On 07/08/2018 12:36 PM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>> List of affected packages:
>>>
>>> openscap-daemon: /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/openscap_daemon/async.py
>>> pylint3: /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/pylint/checkers/async.py
>>> python3-astroquery: /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/astroquery/vo_conesearch/async.py
>>> python3-celery: /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/celery/backends/async.py
>>> python3-dropbox: /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/dropbox/async.py
>>> python3-exabgp: /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/exabgp/reactor/async.py
>>> python3-gunicorn: /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/gunicorn/workers/async.py
>>> python3-ldap: /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/ldap/async.py
>>> python3-mapproxy: /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/mapproxy/util/async.py
>>> python3-opengl: /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/OpenGL/GL/SGIX/async.py
>>> python3-opengl: /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/OpenGL/raw/GL/SGIX/async.py
>>> python3-pexpect: /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/pexpect/async.py
>>> python3-pylama: /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/pylama/async.py
>>> python3-pymodbus: /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/pymodbus/client/async.py
>>> python3-pymodbus: /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/pymodbus/server/async.py
>>> python3-raven: /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/raven/contrib/async.py
>>> python3-rpyc: /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/rpyc/core/async.py
>>> python3-tenacity: /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/tenacity/async.py
>>> salt-common: /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/salt/utils/async.py
>>> visidata: /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/visidata/async.py
>>
>> There's more than this. What you're reporting doesn't seem to include
>> packages defining the async function, for example gevent. I also saw
>> more than this list, just by trying to rebuild neutron-fwaas:
>> python3-oslo.db (we just fixed that one), python3-kafka, python3-pika,
>> python3-dogpile.cache (bug with fix already filled, we'll fix soon).
>>
>> I would anyway very much welcome a mass bug filling, but best would be
>> to try not to forget any package. Note that tenacity is already fixed.
>
> Note that "already fixed in unstable" is only part of the story.
>
> Most important will be Breaks for all affected packages in *stretch*,
> since there might otherwise be nasty problems in stretch->buster
> upgrades depending on the undefined order of package upgrades.
Do you mean that the interpreter will have to declare Breaks: for the
affected packages?
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Reply to: