Bug 1751491 - python-subprocess32 depends on Python 2
Summary: python-subprocess32 depends on Python 2
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 1775091
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: python-subprocess32
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Fedora Infrastructure SIG
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 1737823 1739520 1739652 1763167
Blocks: F31_PY2REMOVAL
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2019-09-12 05:36 UTC by Lumír Balhar
Modified: 2019-11-21 12:15 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-11-21 12:15:07 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

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 ***


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.