Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
20 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep

Michał Górny-5
# Michał Górny <[hidden email]> (2020-03-07)
# The following packages are stuck on Python 3.6, and have no reverse
# dependencies.  Please let the Python team know if you find some
# of them still useful.
# Removal in 30 days.  Bug #711808.
dev-python/CacheControl
dev-python/ImageHash
dev-python/ReParser
dev-python/aadict
dev-python/abstract_rendering
dev-python/aioeventlet
dev-python/aiotest
dev-python/amqplib
dev-python/anyjson
dev-python/asciimatics
dev-python/asset
dev-python/atom
dev-python/batinfo
dev-python/bcolz
dev-python/beaker
dev-python/biplist
dev-python/blaze
dev-python/bpython
dev-python/cgroup-utils
dev-python/chameleon
dev-python/colander
dev-python/colorful
dev-python/columnize
dev-python/common
dev-python/crumbs
dev-python/cssselect2
dev-python/curtsies
dev-python/cx_Freeze
dev-python/d2to1
dev-python/datashape
dev-python/deform
dev-python/distlib
dev-python/django-appconf
dev-python/django-baker
dev-python/django-crispy-forms
dev-python/django-discover-runner
dev-python/django-grappelli
dev-python/django-haystack
dev-python/django-nose
dev-python/django-picklefield
dev-python/django-recaptcha
dev-python/django-select2
dev-python/django-tinymce
dev-python/dogpile-core
dev-python/dynd-python
dev-python/embedly
dev-python/envoy
dev-python/fedmsg
dev-python/flask-admin
dev-python/flask-peewee
dev-python/flask-pymongo
dev-python/flask-socketio
dev-python/flask-uploads
dev-python/flipflop
dev-python/formencode
dev-python/fudge
dev-python/geoalchemy2
dev-python/geopy
dev-python/gevent-socketio
dev-python/gitlabform
dev-python/globre
dev-python/glymur
dev-python/hiredis
dev-python/hiro
dev-python/httreplay
dev-python/husl
dev-python/hvac
dev-python/influxdb
dev-python/intelhex
dev-python/into
dev-python/ipcalc
dev-python/iso3166
dev-python/iso_639
dev-python/jog
dev-python/jpype
dev-python/jsmin
dev-python/json-rpc
dev-python/json-tools
dev-python/keepassx
dev-python/kitchen
dev-python/libzilla
dev-python/locustio
dev-python/mailmanclient
dev-python/meteor-ejson
dev-python/mimerender
dev-python/mmh3
dev-python/mockldap
dev-python/multipledispatch
dev-python/netmiko
dev-python/nltk
dev-python/nosehtmloutput
dev-python/odo
dev-python/passwordmeter
dev-python/pdb-clone
dev-python/pdoc
dev-python/peppercorn
dev-python/pgpdump
dev-python/pillowfight
dev-python/placefinder
dev-python/prettyprinter
dev-python/prometheus_flask_exporter
dev-python/pxml
dev-python/py-lz4framed
dev-python/py2neo
dev-python/pycanberra
dev-python/pycipher
dev-python/pycmd
dev-python/pycobertura
dev-python/pydot-ng
dev-python/pyee
dev-python/pyev
dev-python/pyfeyn
dev-python/pyfiglet
dev-python/pygcrypt
dev-python/pygeocoder
dev-python/pyhcl
dev-python/pykka
dev-python/pymtp
dev-python/pynzb
dev-python/pyopencl
dev-python/pyphen
dev-python/pyprof2calltree
dev-python/pyshark
dev-python/pysnmp-apps
dev-python/pysnmp-mibs
dev-python/pysolr
dev-python/pystache
dev-python/pytest-arraydiff
dev-python/pytest-cython
dev-python/pytest-isort
dev-python/pytest-mpl
dev-python/python-afl
dev-python/python-cluster
dev-python/python-ddp
dev-python/python-discid
dev-python/python-ebtables
dev-python/python-engineio
dev-python/python-hpilo
dev-python/python-meteor
dev-python/python-otrs
dev-python/python-scsi
dev-python/python-socketio
dev-python/python-twitter
dev-python/python-uinput
dev-python/pythonmagick
dev-python/pyx
dev-python/pyzor
dev-python/rackspace-monitoring
dev-python/readlike
dev-python/redis-py-cluster
dev-python/regendoc
dev-python/ropemode
dev-python/schedule
dev-python/schema
dev-python/scp
dev-python/seaborn
dev-python/setuptools_hg
dev-python/simplekv
dev-python/slackclient
dev-python/spark-parser
dev-python/sphinx-better-theme
dev-python/sphinxcontrib-googleanalytics
dev-python/sphinxcontrib-programoutput
dev-python/tempest-lib
dev-python/testify
dev-python/tinycss2
dev-python/tlslite
dev-python/tpg
dev-python/translationstring
dev-python/trollius
dev-python/twitter
dev-python/twython
dev-python/uhashring
dev-python/uncompyle6
dev-python/venusian
dev-python/versiontools
dev-python/vulture
dev-python/weasyprint
dev-python/ws4py
dev-python/wsgiintercept
dev-python/wtf-peewee
dev-python/xdis
dev-python/zc-buildout
www-apps/nikola

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny


signature.asc (631 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep

Ulrich Mueller-2
>>>>> On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Michał Górny wrote:

> # Michał Górny <[hidden email]> (2020-03-07)
> # The following packages are stuck on Python 3.6, and have no reverse
> # dependencies.  Please let the Python team know if you find some
> # of them still useful.
> # Removal in 30 days.  Bug #711808.

Does this mean that only the ebuilds are "stuck on Python 3.6", or the
upstream packages? All 184 of them?

Please explain.

signature.asc (517 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep

Michał Górny-5
On Sat, 2020-03-07 at 18:06 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:

> > > > > > On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Michał Górny wrote:
> > # Michał Górny <[hidden email]> (2020-03-07)
> > # The following packages are stuck on Python 3.6, and have no reverse
> > # dependencies.  Please let the Python team know if you find some
> > # of them still useful.
> > # Removal in 30 days.  Bug #711808.
>
> Does this mean that only the ebuilds are "stuck on Python 3.6", or the
> upstream packages? All 184 of them?
>
Ebuilds.  183 of them.  One is stuck on py2 but is included as only
revdep.  But that's by no means all ebuilds like that, just a subset
Python team doesn't see much of a point maintaining.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny


signature.asc (631 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep

Ulrich Mueller-2
>>>>> On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Michał Górny wrote:

> Ebuilds.  183 of them.  One is stuck on py2 but is included as only
> revdep.

Just the ebuild being outdated doesn't sound like a sufficient reason
for removal of a package, at least not for those packages that install
applications for the end user.

> But that's by no means all ebuilds like that, just a subset Python
> team doesn't see much of a point maintaining.

Why had they been added then, in the first place?

Ulrich

signature.asc (517 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep

Andreas Sturmlechner
On Samstag, 7. März 2020 18:49:25 CET Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Just the ebuild being outdated doesn't sound like a sufficient reason
> for removal of a package, at least not for those packages that install
> applications for the end user.

They are python packages and as such they block cleanup of old python
versions. Someone has to actually put effort into each of them to keep them
alive.

> > But that's by no means all ebuilds like that, just a subset Python
> > team doesn't see much of a point maintaining.
>
> Why had they been added then, in the first place?

Packages get added by someone, then that someone does not care about them
anymore and they fall behind. Is that really news?

People who see a need for some of those can pick them up as maintainers after
all.

Regards,
Andreas

signature.asc (631 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep

Alec Warner-2
On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 9:57 AM Andreas Sturmlechner <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Samstag, 7. März 2020 18:49:25 CET Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Just the ebuild being outdated doesn't sound like a sufficient reason
> for removal of a package, at least not for those packages that install
> applications for the end user.

They are python packages and as such they block cleanup of old python
versions. Someone has to actually put effort into each of them to keep them
alive.

I think the idea is that this is all implicit in the notification, rather than being explicit, which muddles the messaging. I *suspect* that py3.6 will get dropped eventually as its no longer developed (but is security supported by upstream through 2021.) If we just came out and said "Hey we plan on dropping python-3.6 in X[0] months, here are a bunch of packages on py-3.6, we need to either drop them or update them" the conversation would be slightly different.

I also suspect the conversation did not go this way because then instead of discussing who would maintain these packages, we would be discussing "why python-3.6 should not be dropped until the last possible day in 2021" which sounds reminiscent of python2 ;)

I think however, that we can do both. Python-3.6 will get removed eventually; there are dozens of packages that need help and I don't think it is incumbent on the python team to do all of the work, hence this thread notifying folks that "hey if you use these packages they will need help to stay around."

[0] We could all argue over some value of X; but on another thread please ;p
 

> > But that's by no means all ebuilds like that, just a subset Python
> > team doesn't see much of a point maintaining.
>
> Why had they been added then, in the first place?

Packages get added by someone, then that someone does not care about them
anymore and they fall behind. Is that really news?

People who see a need for some of those can pick them up as maintainers after
all.

Regards,
Andreas
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep

Michał Górny-5
In reply to this post by Ulrich Mueller-2
On Sat, 2020-03-07 at 18:49 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Ebuilds.  183 of them.  One is stuck on py2 but is included as only
> > revdep.
>
> Just the ebuild being outdated doesn't sound like a sufficient reason
> for removal of a package, at least not for those packages that install
> applications for the end user.

The list is almost exclusively about dev-python/, i.e. packages that do
not install end-user applications but Python modules.

> > But that's by no means all ebuilds like that, just a subset Python
> > team doesn't see much of a point maintaining.
>
> Why had they been added then, in the first place?
>

You should ask the person who added them.  Some of them probably used to
have revdeps in the past but lost them (either because they switched to
other deps or were removed).  Some of them were added because somebody
used it at some point.  Some of them were added because someone thought
it would be great idea to package a lot of Python modules because we
can.

Some of these someones have retired since.  Some left the Python team.
Some weren't ever part of it yet dumped packages on us.

I could go on like this for much longer but what's the purpose?
The point is, python@ has a lot of packages, we can't maintain them all.
These packages weren't really maintained for at least a few months, so
dropping them lets us focus on packages that do have dependencies or
otherwise seem more useful.

I mean, surely, we can try to test ~300 packages on py3.7 just to
discover half of them were added without tests, large number have
failing tests, some have silly mistakes...

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny


signature.asc (631 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep

Ulrich Mueller-2
>>>>> On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Michał Górny wrote:

>> Just the ebuild being outdated doesn't sound like a sufficient reason
>> for removal of a package, at least not for those packages that install
>> applications for the end user.

> The list is almost exclusively about dev-python/, i.e. packages that
> do not install end-user applications but Python modules.

Like www-apps/nikola, for example?

signature.asc (517 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep

Matt Turner-5
On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 10:27 AM Ulrich Mueller <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> >> Just the ebuild being outdated doesn't sound like a sufficient reason
> >> for removal of a package, at least not for those packages that install
> >> applications for the end user.
>
> > The list is almost exclusively about dev-python/, i.e. packages that
> > do not install end-user applications but Python modules.
>
> Like www-apps/nikola, for example?

This is not a productive way to communicate.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep

Ulrich Mueller-2
>>>>> On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Matt Turner wrote:

>> > The list is almost exclusively about dev-python/, i.e. packages that
>> > do not install end-user applications but Python modules.
>>
>> Like www-apps/nikola, for example?

> This is not a productive way to communicate.

The point is that packages that are perfectly working, actively
maintained upstream (and the ebuild version bumped in the last month)
are being last-rited all of a sudden.

What message does that send to users about the suitability of Gentoo
for usage in a production environment?

signature.asc (517 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep

Matt Turner-5
On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 11:21 AM Ulrich Mueller <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Matt Turner wrote:
>
> >> > The list is almost exclusively about dev-python/, i.e. packages that
> >> > do not install end-user applications but Python modules.
> >>
> >> Like www-apps/nikola, for example?
>
> > This is not a productive way to communicate.
>
> The point is that packages that are perfectly working, actively
> maintained upstream (and the ebuild version bumped in the last month)
> are being last-rited all of a sudden.
>
> What message does that send to users about the suitability of Gentoo
> for usage in a production environment?

I would hope that it would communicate that the Gentoo developers
doing the maintenance have too many packages to maintain and could use
some help from those interested!

That is, instead of getting a bunch of complaints.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep

Michał Górny-5
In reply to this post by Ulrich Mueller-2
On Sat, 2020-03-07 at 20:21 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:

> > > > > > On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Matt Turner wrote:
> > > > The list is almost exclusively about dev-python/, i.e. packages that
> > > > do not install end-user applications but Python modules.
> > >
> > > Like www-apps/nikola, for example?
> > This is not a productive way to communicate.
>
> The point is that packages that are perfectly working, actively
> maintained upstream (and the ebuild version bumped in the last month)
> are being last-rited all of a sudden.
>
> What message does that send to users about the suitability of Gentoo
> for usage in a production environment?
What message does send the fact that Gentoo is defaulting to
an unmaintained (upstream) version of Python and for years have problems
moving forward?  Switching to 3.6 was a massacre already, and users felt
it.

Surely, some people will claim that I'm removing 'perfectly working,
blah blah blah' packages.  Completely ignoring the fact that the mask
explicitly asks *which* packages are worth keeping.  But some people
will simply realize that I'm trying to make Python in Gentoo sustainable
again.

It's easy to complain.  It's hard to come up with good solutions.

The current rough count for packages missing 3.7 support is 1057.  How
many of them are *you* willing to port?  Is it a crime that we're trying
to remove ~200 packages from that list?

Surely, you can claim we could just drop them to maintainer-needed.
What problem does that solve?  The package would still miss 3.7 support.
Users will still suffer when we switch the default (if they have any
users, that is).  We would still have to last rite them when 3.6 is
gone.  What's the gain?

Right, let's talk about m-needed.  Over 2000 packages already and still
growing.  What message does *that* send to the users?

How about the following message: the difference between Gentoo
and Debian stable is that Gentoo doesn't have the 'b'.

Finally, what message does it send to our users when developers keep
picking up fights like this?  You seem to disagree with my work
on Gentoo, and the only solution you can come up is publicly shaming me?
This isn't 'let's discuss a better solution' kind of mail, this is
'justify yourself before me, you puny developer, how dare you do things
I don't like'.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny


signature.asc (631 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep

Jonas Stein
In reply to this post by Ulrich Mueller-2
On 07/03/2020 19.27, Ulrich Mueller wrote:

>>>>>> On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Michał Górny wrote:
>
>>> Just the ebuild being outdated doesn't sound like a sufficient reason
>>> for removal of a package, at least not for those packages that install
>>> applications for the end user.
>
>> The list is almost exclusively about dev-python/, i.e. packages that
>> do not install end-user applications but Python modules.
>
> Like www-apps/nikola, for example?
>
Nikola is actively maintained and was recently updated.
It works fine and has many users.

Did you look into that package before hard masking?
I see no problems with this package.
https://github.com/getnikola/nikola/blob/master/setup.py

Please undo the masking of fully working packages.

--
Best,
Jonas


signature.asc (650 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep

Matt Turner-5
On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 12:17 PM Jonas Stein <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 07/03/2020 19.27, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> >>> Just the ebuild being outdated doesn't sound like a sufficient reason
> >>> for removal of a package, at least not for those packages that install
> >>> applications for the end user.
> >
> >> The list is almost exclusively about dev-python/, i.e. packages that
> >> do not install end-user applications but Python modules.
> >
> > Like www-apps/nikola, for example?
> >
>
> Nikola is actively maintained and was recently updated.
> It works fine and has many users.
>
> Did you look into that package before hard masking?
> I see no problems with this package.
> https://github.com/getnikola/nikola/blob/master/setup.py
>
> Please undo the masking of fully working packages.

Christ guys. Just add python 3.7 support and unmask it.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep

Michał Górny-5
On Sat, 2020-03-07 at 12:26 -0800, Matt Turner wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 12:17 PM Jonas Stein <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 07/03/2020 19.27, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > Just the ebuild being outdated doesn't sound like a sufficient reason
> > > > > for removal of a package, at least not for those packages that install
> > > > > applications for the end user.
> > > > The list is almost exclusively about dev-python/, i.e. packages that
> > > > do not install end-user applications but Python modules.
> > >
> > > Like www-apps/nikola, for example?
> > >
> >
> > Nikola is actively maintained and was recently updated.
> > It works fine and has many users.
> >
> > Did you look into that package before hard masking?
> > I see no problems with this package.
> > https://github.com/getnikola/nikola/blob/master/setup.py
> >
> > Please undo the masking of fully working packages.
>
> Christ guys. Just add python 3.7 support and unmask it.
...and 3.8, please, so we don't have to go back here a year from now.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny


signature.asc (631 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep

Thomas Deutschmann
In reply to this post by Matt Turner-5
Hi,

www-apps/nikola was now moved away from python project and unmasked.

For reference, www-apps/nikola is heavily in use by the Gentoo e.V. in
Germany (surprising when you watch git log, not?). Gentoo e.V. is also
running Gentoo stable and Python 3.6 is the current stable version.
Python 3.7 will become the successor but isn't yet... so please calm
down regarding "But it doesn't support Py 3.7+ yet". We will add that
support in future when time permits.

The main problem is that Python project has decided to ignore common
rules and established a new disruptive way to tackle current problems.

I don't say that it isn't a problem that [hidden email] became
maintainer of thousands of package the project never wanted. I don't
have a solution for that problem but I would suggest to start with a
honest mask like

> Packages mask for removal because Python project no longer
> wants to maintain these packages

This is without any judgment. It's just a fact. But please stop
spreading FUD that these packages are blocking, outdated or not well
maintained.

So if Python project has decided to go the disruptive road (yes, I am
aware that we don't have a better mechanism like setting a mask to get
attention), you have to deal with the fact that this is disruptive and
that not everyone like that.

But please, nobody is publicly shaming anyone. If you play that card,
don't wonder that people will stop talking.

Don't read too much into everything.


--
Regards,
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer
C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5


signature.asc (631 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep

Andreas Sturmlechner
On Samstag, 7. März 2020 21:54:39 CET Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> I don't say that it isn't a problem that [hidden email] became
> maintainer of thousands of package the project never wanted. I don't
> have a solution for that problem but I would suggest to start with a
> honest mask like
>
> > Packages mask for removal because Python project no longer
> > wants to maintain these packages

You mean as opposed to what the mask message said right there:

"Please let the Python team know if you find some of them still useful."

Semantics.

signature.asc (631 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep

Ulrich Mueller-2
In reply to this post by Michał Górny-5
>>>>> On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Michał Górny wrote:

> Surely, you can claim we could just drop them to maintainer-needed.
> What problem does that solve?  The package would still miss 3.7 support.
> Users will still suffer when we switch the default (if they have any
> users, that is).  We would still have to last rite them when 3.6 is
> gone.  What's the gain?

> Right, let's talk about m-needed.  Over 2000 packages already and still
> growing.  What message does *that* send to the users?

Sorry, but where have I suggested to drop these packages to m-n?

> How about the following message: the difference between Gentoo
> and Debian stable is that Gentoo doesn't have the 'b'.

> Finally, what message does it send to our users when developers keep
> picking up fights like this?  You seem to disagree with my work
> on Gentoo, and the only solution you can come up is publicly shaming me?
> This isn't 'let's discuss a better solution' kind of mail, this is
> 'justify yourself before me, you puny developer, how dare you do things
> I don't like'.

This is neither a fight nor a personal issue. Also, please don't put
words in my mouth that I haven't said and never intended to say.

Ulrich

signature.asc (517 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep

David Seifert
On Sat, 2020-03-07 at 22:22 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:

> > > > > > On Sat, 07 Mar 2020, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Surely, you can claim we could just drop them to maintainer-needed.
> > What problem does that solve?  The package would still miss 3.7 support.
> > Users will still suffer when we switch the default (if they have any
> > users, that is).  We would still have to last rite them when 3.6 is
> > gone.  What's the gain?
> > Right, let's talk about m-needed.  Over 2000 packages already and still
> > growing.  What message does *that* send to the users?
>
> Sorry, but where have I suggested to drop these packages to m-n?
>
> > How about the following message: the difference between Gentoo
> > and Debian stable is that Gentoo doesn't have the 'b'.
> > Finally, what message does it send to our users when developers keep
> > picking up fights like this?  You seem to disagree with my work
> > on Gentoo, and the only solution you can come up is publicly shaming me?
> > This isn't 'let's discuss a better solution' kind of mail, this is
> > 'justify yourself before me, you puny developer, how dare you do things
> > I don't like'.
>
> This is neither a fight nor a personal issue. Also, please don't put
> words in my mouth that I haven't said and never intended to say.
>
> Ulrich

In general, I don't the see the point of this thread. Python requires explicit
implementation enabling, and unless you're willing to help test py3.7 on py3.6-
only packages, complaining about masking packages gets us absolutely nowhere.
Propose actual solutions and step in to help and bump packages. Walk the walk,
don't just talk the talk.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Last rites: dev-python/*, python-maintained, py3.6-only, no-revdep

Kent Fredric-2
In reply to this post by Michał Górny-5
On Sat, 07 Mar 2020 17:28:53 +0100
Michał Górny <[hidden email]> wrote:

> dev-python/fedmsg

Just to buck the trend: Thanks.

When I saw the PR for this with my name in it (due to comaint), I
initially reacted and was going to oppose this removal.

But, well, I thought about it, and the reason this was here in the
first place was to look after some future potential work with
release-monitoring that had stalled and never come to fruition.

So yes, its removal was satisfactory.

If the "work with release-monitoring" folk ever get around to actually
needing this, we can always reinstate it then anyway.

attachment0 (849 bytes) Download Attachment