Re: RC severity for Python 2.6 related bugs
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 15:29, Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> wrote:
> OoO Pendant le journal télévisé du samedi 27 février 2010, vers 20:19,
> Luca Falavigna <dktrkranz@debian.org> disait :
>
>> after some discussions on #debian-python, I'd like to propose
>> increasing severity of Python 2.6 related bugs [1] to serious.
>
> Well, I disagree. Python 2.6 is not the default. Packages are currently
> built with Python 2.5 and do not fail to build in a current pbuilder.
I tend to concur: they should be RC when 2.6 is the default, which is
still not, for no reason.
> We
> already had a bunch of bug reports about packages not building with
> Python 2.6 as default a few months ago and it was a mess to setup a
> pbuilder to build with Python 2.6 as default [1]. The solution is easier
> now but not documented (to the best of my knowledge).
It still needs manual setup, and it's not so known how to do, and of
course there was no support from python maintainer in at least setting
2.6 as default in experimental, just to help people debug and fix
those bugs. I've asked this in late December, no reply came, (but it's
so difficult is to change 5 lines in debian/rules of python-default to
help releasing with 2.6 as default...).
> I am also still lost why Python transition communication is done in
> debian-release@ and not in debian-python@.
Because Python maintainer is unable to communicate, with anyhow. The
only audience he cares a bit is the Release Team. debian-python is
completely ignored by him.
> debian-python@ contains posts
> like "Why default python is not 2.6 yet?" that got not really answered
> because the transition seems to be managed behind the scene.
the transition is simply not handled by the Python maintainer. It is
handled by the people he ignores by filing bugs, preparing patches and
NMU, and interacting with RT for binNMUs. Often it is done on irc, so
no public trace is left.
> It would be far easier to let Python 2.6 be the default, then file (or
INDEED!
> upgrade) serious bugs and solve them in a week or two. Most bug FTBFS
> reports that I received for my Python packages is related to the build
> process and does not hinder the package from working with Python 2.6. I
> think this is the case for most simple packages because the hard work is
> done by python-support.
That's why setting 2.6 should have set as default *ages* ago: did
anyone hear from Python maintainer about it (even after kind and
less-kind queries)? Of course, no, thank you...
Regards,
--
Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu)
My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Reply to: