On 10.01.2018 17:06, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am the maintainer of the "python-astropy" package, that currently
> creates packages for both Python 2 and Python 3. Both packages have a
> number of reverse dependencies.
>
> Recently, upstream announced a new version 3.0 of astropy, which
> supports Python 3 only, and I think of the best mid-term strategy: The
> old version 2.0 is supported upstream for ~2 years, and I want to have a
> smooth migration path. I checked the wiki, but could not find good
> information about migration.
Currently discussed. See "Python2 EOL and moving towards Python3" on this ML.
> I thought of a temporary package split: create a new source package
> "astropy" that inherits of the current python-astropy package, but only
> builds python3-astropy (and the utils + doc, which depend on
> python3-astropy), and update this to version 3.0. Then I would remove
> these binary packages from the python-astropy package. In parallel, I
> would file bugs (severity: important) to remove the reverse dependencies
> of the Python 2 packages (many of them are mine, but also may have
> reverse dependencies).
>
> As long as there are substantial problems with the removal of the Python
> 2 support, I then keep the "old" python-astropy package updated. Once
> everything is figured out and we decide to finally kick out Python 2
> support (from Debian-Astro, or from Debian), I would set the remaining
> bugs as RC, and (once they are solved) remove the "python-astropy"
> package.
>
> Does this sound reasonable? And how should I do this technically?
well, astropy is not such a mainstream package that I would mind removing some
of it's reverse dependencies. If you want to add the additional pain having a
separate Python2 source stack, go for it. I wouldn't want to do that myself. If
not, just go ahead with Python3 after having identified the reverse dependencies
which are not maintained by yourself.
Matthias