In line with the Mass Python 2 Package Removal [0], all (sub)packages of python-yenc were marked for removal: * python2-yenc According to our query, those packages only provide a Python 2 importable module. If this is not true, please tell us why, so we can fix our query. Please retire your package in Rawhide (Fedora 30). If there is no objection in a week, we will retire the package for you. We hope this doesn't come to you as a surprise. If you want to know our motivation for this, please read the change document [0]. [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Mass_Python_2_Package_Removal
> We hope this doesn't come to you as a surprise. If you want to know our motivation for this, please read the change document [0]. It does come as a surprise, and the change document does not really justify the decision. For some reason it seems you have placed a higher standard on any potential python2 maintainer than any other orphaned package and as a result have excluded anyone who might be interested in the ordinary lower level of commitment.
Anyway, I object to the retirement of the package.
> For some reason it seems you have placed a higher standard on any potential python2 maintainer than any other orphaned package and as a result have excluded anyone who might be interested in the ordinary lower level of commitment. Sorry I fail to understand this. > Anyway, I object to the retirement of the package. Please provide technical reasons. Talk to FESCo if you disagree with this change entirely.
> Sorry I fail to understand this. It seems like you are ramrodding through Python2 removal in a fashion distinct from other packages their maintainers drop. > If there is no objection in a week, we will retire the package for you. I provided objection for this specific package. What is the question here? (And one week is a very short timeline considering we still have about 6 months until F30.)
(In reply to Conrad Meyer from comment #4) > > Sorry I fail to understand this. > > It seems like you are ramrodding through Python2 removal in a fashion > distinct from other packages their maintainers drop. I guess we are. > > If there is no objection in a week, we will retire the package for you. > > I provided objection for this specific package. What is the question here? What is a technical reason to keep this RPM packaged in Fedora? Why it is needed? > (And one week is a very short timeline considering we still have about 6 > months until F30.) Is there a reasonable assumption that the package would switch to Python 3 in Fedora 30 lifetime? That would be a good technical reason. If not, I guess a week notice is perfectly fine. Or is there another technical reason to wait longer? However if you really want to change the week deadline, stop closing the bug and discuss (preferably on the devel mailing list) about how and why to extend the deadlines on those bugs. Note that there are thousands of packages to alter and having long deadlines for "waiting for response" can make this impossible even in 6 months.
(In reply to Conrad Meyer from comment #1) > > We hope this doesn't come to you as a surprise. If you want to know our motivation for this, please read the change document [0]. > > It does come as a surprise, and the change document does not really justify > the decision. For some reason it seems you have placed a higher standard on > any potential python2 maintainer than any other orphaned package and as a > result have excluded anyone who might be interested in the ordinary lower > level of commitment. Well it does actually. "The first line: Python 2 reaches End of Life on 2020-01-01" From the benefit to Fedora section: "A giant pile of unneeded software running on a legacy interperter will be removed from Fedora before the interpreter stops being supported upstream." Those reasons might not be enough for you, but please provide specific feedback on it, as of course opinions can vary. However there are technical reasons from our side to propose that change, which include and are not limited to: not wanting to support obsolete software with an increasing attack vector, adoption of newer technologies and moving the distribution forward, alignment with CPython upstream and more.
@Charalampos, It's 2018, not 2020. Regardless, realistically Python.org stopped supporting Python2 in 2014. We're already living in a post-EOL Python2 world and it isn't so bad. Nothing significant changes on 2020-01-01. It is clear that that group of developers have chosen to focus their efforts only on the Python3 language (which is fine), but it does not imply that working python2 software that has not been ported to python3's needlessly incompatible language should be tossed in the dumpster. Regardless, I am still confused. Miro seems to be requiring removing python2- packages with a one week cut-off, but *not* removing the interpreter for the same release? What could possibly be the point of that? If you're going to remove all packages, better remove the interpreter as well. An alternative to this huge churn in python2- packages might just be to Obsolete Python2 and replace it with the Tauthon ("Python 2.8") fork, which will continue to be supported past 2020.
(In reply to Conrad Meyer from comment #7) > Regardless, I am still confused. Miro seems to be requiring removing > python2- packages with a one week cut-off, but *not* removing the > interpreter for the same release? What could possibly be the point of that? > If you're going to remove all packages, better remove the interpreter as > well. Please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Mass_Python_2_Package_Removal You are asking questions answered there. "[python2] maintainers would like to orphan it before [2020], and so far no one else has stepped up to maintain Python 2 (with the full ecosystem) past 2020. Since thousands of packages still depend on python2, we need a more careful approach than normal orphaning. Some of those packages are abandoned and/or the Python 2 version is unnecessary. Others are useful and just need more time to port to Python 3. Hence we set up criteria for python2 packages that can remain in the distribution and we remove everything else. This should allow us to keep python2 for limited use, not break everything, but should also send a strong message that it is no longer a first class citizen, and filter packages we need to focus Python 3 porting efforts on." Yenc is a library nothing else in Fedora depends on, hence it fits the criteria for removal. Also, it seems pretty much dead upstream. What is a technical reason to keep this RPM packaged in Fedora? Why it is needed? If you generally disagree with how this change is designed, bring the discussion to the devel mailing list or FESCo.
I've asked the following question: > What is a technical reason to keep this RPM packaged in Fedora? Why it is needed? Why did you drop the needinfo without an answer? I'm confused.
Why did you add the needinfo without a question? It seems dropping python2 is a foregone conclusion. There nothing for me to do or provide info on.
OK. I was trying to understand if removing the package would break anything. Assuming the answer is no.
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #11) > OK. I was trying to understand if removing the package would break anything. > Assuming the answer is no. Ah, got it. You're correct — I brought it in as part of an effort to package sabnzbdplus, but the package was never reviewed and approved (bug 519652).
Will retire today.
Retired in rawhide.