On 9/2/19 1:18 PM, Martin Kelly wrote:
On 9/1/19 10:07 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:On September 2, 2019 4:00:53 AM UTC, Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> wrote:I would just stop building these. And if the reverse dependencieshave apy2removal bug itself, then comment in these issues that the suggested/recommended package gets removed. If they don't have apy2removalbug, please file the bugs for these packages.i dont believe this is a sensible approach; for example i maintain python-mpmath, that would be rendered uninstallable the moment python-gmp2 is removed. Now, python-mpmath has 3 external reverse-dependencies (just to name a couple, sagemath and simpy) that would be then uninstallable, and so on and so forth for all their rdeps. Martin, i think for now the only option is to keep the py2 packages around until we're ready to drop them (ie they have 0 rdeps).I just checked on packages.d.o and according to it, python-gmp2 is a Suggests. Suggests aren't installed with packages. Unless I'm missing something, python-mpmath wouldn't become uninstallable.IIRC, policy doesn't even require Suggests packages to exist.I agree about keeping packages as long as they have reverse Recommends, but I think Suggests is going too far (although AIUI, missing Recommends don't make the package uninstallable either).Scott KIf I'm summarizing correctly, it sounds like there is no policy on exactly what to do here. I think removing the package would be pretty bad, because gmpy is designed to speed up numerical libraries, and the performance hit without it would make many libraries really painful to use. Given this, perhaps the dependencies should be Recommends instead of Suggests.The guidelines I saw in the bugs filed on my packages (e.g. bug #937791) say to "document" the reverse dependency. Where do I document this?
(ping). I'd like to resolve the bugs I have on my packages and am not sure yet how best to proceed.