From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Thu Mar 25 06:28:58 2021 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88C365B1120 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 06:28:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dewayne@heuristicsystems.com.au) Received: from hermes.heuristicsystems.com.au (hermes.heuristicsystems.com.au [203.41.22.115]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2560 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "hermes.heuristicsystems.com.au", Issuer "Heuristic Systems Type 4 Host CA" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F5Ztw4TKbz4c60 for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 06:28:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dewayne@heuristicsystems.com.au) Received: from [10.0.5.3] (noddy.hs [10.0.5.3]) (authenticated bits=0) by hermes.heuristicsystems.com.au (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 12P6RwEI061356 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 17:28:00 +1100 (AEDT) (envelope-from dewayne@heuristicsystems.com.au) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=heuristicsystems.com.au; s=hsa; t=1616653680; x=1617258481; bh=moNXQHXPaGvdXcXC3nGBOItqgM9ZjhZAao3+YL1K/4A=; h=Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date; b=Y8iqCp4WwQ+s59pOajI5w4r3YxvYKbPY1GnjNwL8naV821Qt65fR9TteykLlfrmwW WALCXfV29eoIK6NKdP3xyIKUy2m65bcyfynTAiCXoffBMTxFFlVUwSlM31XYPaQ26A 94m1kz0/7tBOgLKi1zXHhebwZSOxnXUxW+0vYyJIR4g75eD59i4qC X-Authentication-Warning: b3.hs: Host noddy.hs [10.0.5.3] claimed to be [10.0.5.3] Subject: Re: Python 2.7 removal outline To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <20210324130347.GA29020@freefall.freebsd.org> <0e28fdd3-441b-e22d-e64e-65bd6b34e9da@quip.cz> From: Dewayne Geraghty Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 17:26:36 +1100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0e28fdd3-441b-e22d-e64e-65bd6b34e9da@quip.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4F5Ztw4TKbz4c60 X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=heuristicsystems.com.au header.s=hsa header.b=Y8iqCp4W; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of dewayne@heuristicsystems.com.au designates 203.41.22.115 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=dewayne@heuristicsystems.com.au X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.20 / 15.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; HAS_XAW(0.00)[]; RCVD_DKIM_ARC_DNSWL_MED(-0.50)[]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED(-0.20)[203.41.22.115:from]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[heuristicsystems.com.au:+]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-1.000]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:1221, ipnet:203.40.0.0/13, country:AU]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[heuristicsystems.com.au:s=hsa]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; DWL_DNSWL_MED(-2.00)[heuristicsystems.com.au:dkim]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-ports@freebsd.org]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[heuristicsystems.com.au]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(1.00)[1.000]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; MAILMAN_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-ports] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 06:28:58 -0000 On 25/03/2021 4:01 am, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > I really appreciate the work of ports team, committers and maintainers > but I dislike double standards. All ports requiring Python 2.7 were > marked deprecated the last year almost all of them removed according to > expiration date 2020-12-31 but some of them are still there. > If there is Python 2.7, if there is Chromium then any of removed ports > can be there. If "we" want to get rid of them then "we" should remove > all of them and not just some by sentiment. > For example Iridium browser was removed because of Python 2.7 but > Chromium is still there. They are both based on the same source with the > same dependencies but Iridium cares more about privacy, yet it was > slaughtered instead of Chromium. > I really would like to see some policies for things like this next time. > > Miroslav Lachman Thanks Miroslav, I have the same view. Though I agree with Rene about the need to remove vulnerable ports and the interests of the FreeBSD community, its worth considering those with both a need and an understanding of the ramifications of using python2.7. We've been disappointed having to digress from the ports infrastructure to continue with python2.7 applications that we need, which were removed (a year ago). It could've been so much more pleasant had a "restricted", or better option been employed. No new ports requiring python2.7 is an excellent suggestion in terms of maintaining a viable user-base (kudos Mathias). For how long, is another discussion. Though after reading through https://reviews.freebsd.org/D28665 are we expecting to keep KDE users on FreeBSD post June 23 (without www/qt5-webengine, konqueror, kontact, kmail,...)? And its incongruous to say talk about upstream abandoning applications, as many continue to maintain "their" software with a now unsupported product (py2.7). Again the need outweighs the risk (for us) vs the upstream cost of conversion. It is an unpleasant though necessary choice. And for the fear-mongers, with a good FreeBSD firewall and strong security mindset, vulnerabilities can be substantially mitigated; and it really should be an option (for experienced folk) to be able to use what is *needed* while properly comprehending the risk vs maintaining an increasingly digressive ports infrastructure.