On 8/7/19 1:09 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 07. 08. 19 10:19, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 8/7/19 10:48 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>> On 07. 08. 19 9:32, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd like to drop the python2-rpm subpackage in Fedora 31.
>>>
>>> There are a handful of dependencies left for it still but these all
>>> appear more or less dead upstream (and some even downstream), and
>>> will go down with the great python2 flush soon anyway. Kobo is the
>>> exception but that has a python3 counterpart already. Here's what
>>> repoquery --whatrequires python2-rpm on rawhide gives today:
>>>
>>> ailurus-0:10.10.3-19.fc31.noarch
>>> dmlite-shell-0:1.13.1-2.fc31.x86_64
>>> firmware-tools-0:2.1.15-5.fc29.noarch
>>
>> FTBFS, should have been retired yesterday.
>>
>>> mach-0:1.0.4-10.fc31.i686
>>> mach-0:1.0.4-10.fc31.x86_64
>>> python2-kobo-rpmlib-0:0.10.0-2.fc31.noarch
>>
>> Drop announced, doesn't install. Will be dropped ~ 2019-08-15.
>>
>>> repo_manager-0:0.1.0-15.fc31.noarch
>>> system-config-users-0:1.3.8-6.fc29.noarch
>>
>> FTBFS, should have been retired yesterday.
>>
>>> vdsm-0:4.18.999-447.git0bb7717.fc28.x86_64
>>
>> FTBFS, should have been retired yesterday.
>
> Heh, remarkably unlucky timing then on my behalf.
>
>>> I'd rather not maintain the python2 bindings for another release
>>> just because a handful of apparently dead software depends on it.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> CC the maintainers, wait for them to not reply and do it:
>>
>>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F31_Mass_Python_2_Package_Removal#...
>>
>
> Yup, read that.
>
> Since the current dependencies are to go away on their own within a
> week or two, I can wait that much for the road to clear itself up.
Note that ailurus and repo_manager are not going anywhere, unless you
pitch in:
repo_manager:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1737845
ailurus has no open bug yet
dmlite-shell source package is FTBFS:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=17470
But dmlite-shell package is also built from dmlite source package (?)
and that builds fine.
Oh, based on the quoting, I thought the "FTBFS, should have been retired
yesterday" remarks in your initial reply covered all these too. Since
that's not the case...
> The thing is that an external maintainer for the python2 part doesn't
> make sense for rpm. Either the rpm-team maintains it 'till the mass
> remove or we drop it now, anything else is just unwanted overhead.
> Hence the request for thoughts rather than invite for others to maintain.
It's more a heads up than anything else, I doubt anyone else will
maintain python2-rpm. Although it is probably possible, as long as you
keep support upstream.
FWIW, dropping python2 support is planned for rpm 4.16:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/806
- Panu -