On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 10:33:04AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
To be completely honest, if someone wants to drop a python2
that's their prerogative but it does bring up an interesting question.
Normally if someone wants to orphan a package, they're welcome to do so
and others are welcome to pick it up. But this is about removing a
Yes, but as with any removal action, it behooves the maintainer to
query and think if that removal will not cause disruption, and if it
will, what is the best way to proceed (announce more widely, warn and
delay the removal, postpone indefinitely?).
If PackagerA wants to drop python2, but PackagerB wants to
volunteer to maintain it, the only options I see are:
* The python2 subpackage gets generated by a separate python2-foo
RPM that PackagerB maintains, and the original source package becomes
completely free of python2 stuff.
It may be useful to see if FPC will approve a blanket exception to the
review process for splitting python2-* source packages out of python-*
source packages, so that bit of bureaucracy can be skipped.
Please don't. This is a repeat of the original idea of having separate
python3 packages back when python3 was being introduced. This was always
a huge pain and waste of maintainer time. From my perspective the idea
of separate python3 source packages held back the support for python3
in Fedora by a year or two.
Doing this on any massive scale would means hundreds (up to 2800?)
"new" packages, a way to burn massive amounts of maintainer time.
* PackagerB offers to co-maintain the package, which will result in
PackagerA having to deal with the python2 subpackage anyway.
Let's do this instead. We need more co-maintainership and more
co-operation in Fedora. If there are people who want or need to support
the python2 version, I'm sure we can have informal agreements where
the bugs with python2 get assigned to them. Keeping an exisiting
python2 subpackage is really no big deal.