Bug 1751491

Summary:	python-subprocess32 depends on Python 2
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Lumír Balhar <lbalhar>
Component:	python-subprocess32	Assignee:	Fedora Infrastructure SIG <infra-sig>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	rawhide	CC:	carlwgeorge, infra-sig, mhroncok, nsoffer
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:	2019-11-21 12:15:07 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:	1737823, 1739520, 1739652, 1763167
Bug Blocks:	1698500

Description Lumír Balhar 2019-09-12 05:36:24 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-subprocess32'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-subprocess32.
If you need anything from us, or something is unclear, please mention it here.

Thank you.

Comment 1 Lumír Balhar 2019-09-12 05:37:40 UTC

I think that we can wait until this package becomes a leaf and then remove it. What do you think? Do you want to maintain it if somebody requests a fesco exception for it?

Comment 2 Carl George 2019-09-12 14:38:57 UTC

I agree on removing this package as soon as nothing else depends on it.  The only place I need it is EPEL, so I have no interest in continuing to maintain it in F32+.

Comment 3 Miro Hrončok 2019-11-21 12:15:07 UTC


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1775091 ***