Web lists-archives.com

Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules





On April 23, 2018 12:52:09 AM UTC, Luke W Faraone <lfaraone@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On 22/04/18 23:52, Julien Muchembled wrote:
>> A lintian warning is even a reason for REJECT. 
>
>Technically yes, Lintian warnings and errors are a thing that ftpteam
>looks at when processing new packages.
>
>But if all Lintian warnings without an override were cause for reject,
>we'd just configure dak to do that work for us, no need to spend time
>reading the package. In fact we do this for a set of Lintian
>warnings/errors with minimal false-positives[1].
>
>We're human, we're going to think about whether it makes sense, whether
>it's a particularly egregious screwup that will make the archive worse,
>whether it's a false-positive or otherwise ignorable, etc.
>
>> "I" (my mentor) uploaded a new source package "zodbpickle" 5 weeks
>ago and I wonder if it's stuck because of this. 
>If that were the case, you should have gotten mail about it. (either a
>prod for more information, or a REJECT)
>
>Looking at the current state of the queue[1], there are a number of
>(non-node) packages ahead of your package. As far as I can tell, it
>just
>hasn't been reviewed yet.
>
>> The ITP contains a link to an email where I explain why it is needed:
>>   https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=842870
>> (to sum up: required dependency in order to package a new version of
>ZODB with support for Python 3)
>> 
>> But I don't want to drop the Python 2 module of ZODB. That's what I
>only use for the moment.
>
>Great! Then don't! From the Lintian warning text:
>
>Python 2.x modules should not be packaged unless strictly necessary
>(such as being explicitly requested by an end-user or required as part
>of a dependency chain) as the 2.x series of Python is due for
>deprecation and will not be maintained past 2020.
>
>> I found strange to put an override for this so I didn't.
>
>While not required, including an override is a sign to other Debian
>developers that "yes, I thought about this and it is not applicable for
>this reason". So I think it would have been good to include one, but
>not
>absolutely required.

Fundamentally not a lintian warnings are created  equal.  Some have solid foundation in Debian project consensus and policy.  Others are nothing more than the opinions of the lintian maintainers.  This is one of the latter.

Scott K