Re: Python 2 removal in sid/bullseye: Progress and next steps
On November 11, 2019 3:10:32 PM UTC, Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> wrote:
>Hi Ondřej,
>
>(please Cc, I am not subscribed to debian-devel)
>
>thanks for your work on the Python2 removal.
>
>On Mon, 11 Nov 2019, Ondřej Nový wrote:
...
>
>Furthermore,
>
>> We will also then file bug reports against ftp.debian.org to remove
>> such packages from unstable. We are going to do this semi-
>
>I think requesting the removal of packages that you are **not**
>maintaining is - to be polite - a bit unconventional (at least).
>This remains at the discretion of the maintainer as far as I remember.
...
Um. No.
We have RoQA rm requests for a reason. You can see it in action in the recent past on Qt4 related packages.
One maintainer doesn't get to block the removal of an entire stack like Qt4. I think there's a reasonable point of discussion about when RoQA is appropriate, but there comes a time when stuff just has to go. That doesn't make it a free for all, but for old, unsupported libs we should have a bias towards action.
For Qt4, I think we're well past it. For python2 it's coming up fast. We started with roughly 3,000 python2 packages. We've done the easy half.
I know the next release is far in the future, but given the size and complexity of the removal effort, I think we're already at risk of not getting it done. I'm not the maintainer of the interpreter packages not the Debian infrastructure packages (I used to be, but lacked time to continue working on it), so my opinion is only that of a DD with multiple affected packages, but I don't think my views on this are at all extreme.
Scott K
Reply to: