Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 12:32:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Python 2.7 removal outline Message-ID: <q56s31s2-2rs3-46n-5873-46p989ssso70@mx.roble.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I find this announcement very much disappointing, because the situation for
> ports that need Python 2.7 or similar to build doesn't seem to have changed at
> all. In short, we are just told (again) that they should disappear.
Many end-users who maintain python2 code, both application and install
deps, are in the same boat. We too are disappointed because:
A) it would be exceedingly simple to modify lang/python2 to include
alternate interpreters (of which there is more than 1) with little
or no maintenance overhead
B) no reasons are given for the deprecation
C) community input has been ignored
D) all of which inflates IT management bias against FreeBSD vis-a-vis
RH, CentOS and Ubuntu (and probably others) which continue to have
python2 compatibility for several years without having to do
anything special
> I had hoped that portmgr@ would turn to me (and others in the same situation)
> with at least some way out to allow Pale Moon to go into the ports tree.
Careful. We have been told that it is not appropriate to criticize the
hardworking volunteers or their decisions because, well, because they
are volunteers. Even criticizing policy often solicits a sharp rebuke
(violating the code of conduct not that it is ever enforced).
> Except for one thing: He responsed to my request for explanations by
> saying: "When we deprecate python 2.7, we also deprecate all forks of
> python 2.7.".
Is there a good reason for this? Would be great to know if so. Is a
mystery otherwise. The IT security paranoid in me suspects an ulterior
motive but what would that be?
> I re-read portmgr@'s charter (https://www.freebsd.org/portmgr/charter/). I
> wish it contained points about proper planning, communication and helping
> maintainers and committers instead of destroying their work without notice,
> even for "niche" ports. Perhaps it doesn't because this was implicit or taken
> for granted. In which case, in light of recent events, it may be a good time
> to revise it.
Agreed.
Roger Marquis
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?q56s31s2-2rs3-46n-5873-46p989ssso70>