Re: Users of cain please raise your voice (Was: Bug#948473: cain: should this package be removed?)
2 weeks passed and nobody replied; i'm gonna file for cain removal in
the morning
On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 4:14 AM Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> when I did my first attempt to port cain I learned that it is really
> complex to do and while I gained some ideas what to try next in another
> attempt I need to fully agree with Sandro that the maintenance will be
> hard.
>
> I hereby explicitly CC Tony from BioLinux (please also spread the word
> in the BioLinux community which unfortunately is not rising their
> opinion here very frequently) and also Ivo who is listed as other
> Uploader. I think if we do not hear from either of you in the next two
> weeks I agree with Sandro and a removal seems to be the best idea.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Andreas.
>
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 12:40:14AM -0500, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> > control: retitle -1 keep cain out of testing
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 12:12 AM Andreas Tille <tille@debian.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Sandro,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 09:28:16PM -0500, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> > > >
> > > > * python2-only
> > > > * no upstream release since July 2012 (not even advertized on their HP)
> > > > * low popcon (but it's also probably part of a niche package)
> > >
> > > I once gave it a try with 2to3 but failed. I intend to give
> > > it another try later.
> > >
> > > > * one of the only 2 reverse-dependency for python-scipy
> > >
> > > For the moment I think removing cain from testing and remove
> > > Python2 version of python-scipy is OK. Cain definitely should
> > > not block progress in scipy.
> >
> > i'll ask the RT to remove it from testing from the time being, this RC
> > bug will prevent it from re-entering.
> >
> > > > It is my opinion we should remove this package from Debian; if i dont hear back
> > > > within a week with a good reason to keep this package around, i'll file for its
> > > > removal.
> > >
> > > If you do not agree with the method above I'm fine with the
> > > removal.
> >
> > i mean, it's fine, but is it maintainable? this is a big piece of code
> > that no upstream developer has supported in 7 and a half years. you're
> > gonna end up with a gigantic 2to3 patch and then what? what if 3.8
> > breaks it, or 3.9? or the next numpy, etc: whos gonna maintain it?
> >
> > are there any unittests to guarantee the 2to3 conversion is ok? from a
> > quick look at the package it looks like there are exactly 0 tests, not
> > comforting :( https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/cain/blob/master/debian/rules#L41
> >
> > the ultimate question is: is it worth to keep this software in debian
> > since there's nobody outside willing to commit time and effort to
> > maintain and evolve it? are you, alone, gonna do it?
> >
> > i dont think it's a sustainable approach to just 2to3 and live to see
> > another day: this py2removal is also a good opportunity to get rid of
> > old/unused/unmaintained packages; to my eyes src:cain look like one of
> > them
> >
> > cheers,
> > --
> > Sandro "morph" Tosi
> > My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
> > Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
> > Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi
> >
>
> --
> http://fam-tille.de
--
Sandro "morph" Tosi
My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi
Reply to: