Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 16:11:48 +0300
- From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Please do not drop Python 2 modules
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 03:08:24PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 04/26/2018 07:14 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:03:56AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >> On 04/25/2018 06:14 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:10:12AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> >>>> ...
> >>>> This cannot go on, and on, and on, and on... We have to send a clear
> >>>> message on the right direction, which is Python 2 removal. Yes, removal!
> >>>> Why are we even discussing this? Isn't it obvious?
> >>> It is not for us to decide what tools our users should use,
> >>> we should support them no matter what tools they have to use.
> >> I'd really love if it was the case. Reality is otherwise.
> >> What if our users want to use Python 2.4? Will we do it? Of course not,
> >> at some point, we may say it's not doable reasonably, because of the
> >> lost of upstream support and the work it involves to keep it alive. So
> >> yes, it's up to us to decide what we're able or what we want to do for
> >> our users, and our users cannot dictate what tool we must maintain. It
> >> has to be the other way around, like it or not.
> > We (Debian) have decided to support Python 2.7 in buster, like it or not.
> You've made general comments about supporting our users, and I reacted
> to that and wrote that we can't always please our users because of real
> world difficulties to do that.
My point is exactly about the difference between "We have to send a
clear message on the right direction, which is Python 2 removal."
and "real world difficulties".
There are no real world difficulties with supporting the Python 2.7
interpreter and most Pythin 2 modules in buster.
It is actually more relevant what is supportable by us than whether or
not upstream still supports it.
Rarity of CVEs makes security support easy, while many security issues
with fast-paced upstream development can be a security support nightmare
There are of difficult cases like "upstream dropped Python 2 support",
these are a separate topic.
> >> That's not the question I was asking. I was asking if someone is
> >> volunteering for the next 5 years (ie: Buster + LTS support, that's
> >> quite a huge commitment).
> > LTS is an effort by a 3rd party external company,
> > what and how they support in LTS is not our problem.
> Wow, hopefully not ! LTS is an effort by the Debian project. What the
> external company does is an effort to *FUND* individual to work on it.
> Currently, only Freexian does this sponsor gathering and redistribution
> work, but it's my understanding that it would be perfectly valid (but
> IMO probably not desirable at this point) that another company competes
> with this funding effort.
I don't think it would ever be a good idea to have companies competing
No matter whether it's the Debian release team for stable or Freexian
for LTS, you need one place where the decisions are made.
> That's a huge difference. If it was only the way you wrote, IE only a
> private company stuff, then the LTS uploads wouldn't be allowed on the
> Debian infrastructure. If here, I'm mistaking, then please, correct me,
> and let's discuss again about LTS and how Debian supports it.
> So yes, LTS is fully part of the Debian project, and how Python 2.7 is
> supported should IMO very much be our concern. Now, we think that we
> should only support Python 2.7 for more than until Buster is EOL and
> becomes an LTS, I support this restriction. Though it'd be nice if we
> had this consensus before Buster is frozen and have the discussion
> closed early.
Such decisions are made by Freexian and their sponsors.
> On 04/26/2018 08:04 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > We already had several cases of a changelog for a new Debian revision
> > that looked approximately:
> > * move vcs to salsa
> > * Standards-Version: 4.1.3
> > * remove python2 package
> > Soon afterwards there was an RC bug because this removed package still
> > had a two digit number of reverse dependencies.
> That is very wrong, I very much agree with what you wrote just above.
> But what about softly removing Python 2 support when there's no reverse
> (build-)dependency in the archive, like I already started to do here and
> there? Do you think that's acceptable?
Unfortunately this would be the problem below the tip of the iceberg:
Python modules are not provided only for usage in other packages.
Users who are using our packaged python with the packaged modules
might suddenly lose modules they need.
> Thomas Goirand (zigo)
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed