Re: Bug#939989: transition: gdal
On 10/1/19 6:26 PM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 05:42:56PM +0200, Sebastiaan Couwenberg wrote:
>>> We shouldn't block removal of Python 2 support on badly and unmaintained
>>> packages.
>
> you can make your case to debian-python@ , but calling networkx or any
> of its rdeps "badly and unmaintained packages" it's borderline
> insulting. if you want to know the impact of breaking python-networkx
> have a look at http://sandrotosi.me/debian/py2removal/python-networkx_2.svg
> (and that's just 2 levels of dependencies, the tree is much deeper
> than that)
You should look at the packages in question and you'll see that several
are not in testing due to RC bugs, likewise several haven't had an
upload in over a year, and that all of them have low popcon scores.
Not a good argument for blocking the py2removal.
>> we should. as some people didnt respect this, piuparts is now broken in
>> testing.
>
> you're right Holger, this has happened and when i noticed, i asked the
> uploader to revert and that usually happened pretty quickly (it is
> easy to get over-excited and not noticing the real impact). i think
> you can ask to revert the removal of whatever package broke piuparts
Unlike the python-networkx rdeps, piuparts in an important package. In
that case it makes some sense to wait for piuparts to get its act
together and switch to Python 3, but despite it being an important
package it shouldn't be a blocker if the maintainer is unable to realise
the switch to Python 3.
python-networkx and its rdeps breaking should not prevent the gdal
transition from starting.
And for the record, the next upload of gdal to unstable which will
likely be of the 2.4 series will also drop the Python 2 support, so not
providing python-gdal won't be an argument to block this transition.
Kind Regards,
Bas
--
GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1
Reply to: