Bug 1739542

Summary:	python-BeautifulSoup depends on Python 2
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Lumír Balhar <lbalhar>
Component:	python-BeautifulSoup	Assignee:	Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) <kwizart>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	31	CC:	kwizart, mhroncok, terje.rosten
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	Triaged
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2020-01-01 21:29:48 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:	1738921, 1738964, 1738978, 1777630
Bug Blocks:	1698500

Description Lumír Balhar 2019-08-09 13:45:43 UTC

Python 2.7 will reach end-of-life in January 2020, over 9 years after it was released. This falls within the Fedora 31 lifetime.
Packages that depend on Python 2 are being switched to Python 3 or removed from Fedora: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F31_Mass_Python_2_Package_Removal#Information_on_Remaining_Packages
Python 2 will be retired in Fedora 32: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RetirePython2

To help planning, we'd like to know the plans for python-BeautifulSoup's future. Specifically:


- What is the reason for the Python2 dependency? (Is it software written in Python, or does it just provide Python bindings, or use Python in the build system or test runner?) 

- What are the upstream/community plans/timelines regarding Python 3?

- What is the guidance for porting to Python 3? (Assuming that there is someone who generally knows how to port to Python 3, but doesn't know anything about the particular package, what are the next steps to take?)


This bug is filed semi-automatically, and might not have all the context specific to python-BeautifulSoup.
If you need anything from us, or something is unclear, please mention it here.

Thank you.

Comment 1 Ben Cotton 2019-08-13 17:04:55 UTC

This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 31 development cycle.
Changing version to '31'.

Comment 2 Ben Cotton 2019-08-13 17:15:27 UTC

This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 31 development cycle.
Changing version to 31.

Comment 3 Lumír Balhar 2019-08-19 10:56:03 UTC

Please answer the above questions. If you don't, the package can be orphaned: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F31_Mass_Python_2_Package_Removal#Information_on_Remaining_Packages

If you need any information or help, or if you need some more time, please let us know.

Comment 4 Terje Røsten 2019-08-19 19:31:27 UTC

A beautfilsoup update is pending a different package.

Comment 5 Lumír Balhar 2019-08-20 05:39:04 UTC

(In reply to Terje Røsten from comment #4)
> A beautfilsoup update is pending a different package.

What do you mean by that? As far as I know, python-BeautifulSoup has a replacement in python-BeautifulSoup4 and all dependent packages should switch to the newer version. When it happens, we'll be able to remove python-BeautifulSoup from Fedora.

Comment 6 Terje Røsten 2019-08-20 05:45:53 UTC

hi, sorry got confused regarding bs3 vs bs4. bs4 had an new dep against soupsieve, let me have a look at this bs3 problem.

Comment 7 Lumír Balhar 2019-08-27 06:47:26 UTC

We have to wait here until all packages switch to python-beautifulsoup4, or you can orphan this package if you don't want to take care of it anymore.

Comment 8 Lumír Balhar 2019-10-09 13:20:44 UTC

archmage will be probably retired, sugar-read will probably request an exception and I don't know the status of gourmet. Do you want to maintain this package in case somebody requests an exception for it? If not, you should orphan is rather sooner than later so orher maintainers can take it to their stack.

Comment 9 Miro Hrončok 2020-01-01 21:29:48 UTC


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1787254 ***