[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Discussing next steps for the Python2 removal

Dear all,

On 22-10-2019 17:04, Matthias Klose wrote:
> He suggested to make the removal plan more
> concrete and having a timeline.

To be more precise on what I meant, I'm talking here about *every*
package that wants to drop a Python 2 binary package, discuss (and
ideally agree on, but I understand that that can be hard) the time line
with their reverse dependencies.

If this is done globally, fine, but please, give reverse dependencies
time to adapt. I'm already seeing quite some annoyance on the fact that
in several cases the ground is pulled away under one's package.

Yes, there's a bug in britney somewhere that allows the migration, we're
trying to find it.


For those that are curious, the britney output [1] shows at the end
binary packages in testing that are not build from source anymore but
are left in testing due to dependencies. Those that aren't in
libs/oldlibs shouldn't be there and are make their reverse dependencies
RC buggy. On top of that, Dose [2] shows packages that can't be build
from source in testing. There's quite some python2 packages listing as
causing that. Again, all those packages are RC buggy (often the bug
hasn't been filed yet).

[1] https://release.debian.org/britney/update_output.txt.gz
[2] https://qa.debian.org/dose/debcheck/src_testing_main/ (pick the
latest amd64 log, it should be empty except for cmucl)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: