On 22 November 2016 at 16:59, Alberto Planas Dominguez wrote:

On Tue, 2016-11-22 at 10:52 -0500, Todd Rme wrote:

...

I propose we remove the SLE 11 repository from devel:languages:python.

For what is worth, I agree.

For what it's worth, I agree also -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

Am 22.11.2016 um 17:29 schrieb Robert Schweikert:

As proposed I oppose the change.

I oppose the change, too. -- Christian ---------------------------------------------------- - Please do not 'CC' me on list mails. Just reply to the list :) ---------------------------------------------------- http://www.sc24.de - Sportbekleidung ---------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

On 11/23/2016 03:47 AM, Alberto Planas Dominguez wrote:

On Tue, 2016-11-22 at 17:43 +0100, Christian wrote:

...

Am 22.11.2016 um 17:29 schrieb Robert Schweikert:

...

As proposed I oppose the change.

I oppose the change, too.

Can we extend a bit more? As I see in monitoring[1] there are several packages that do not build in sle11 anymore. According to the page there are

* succeeded: 1386 * failed: 154 * unresolvable: 175 * broken: 3 * disabled: 239

So a significant portion of the packages are not working.

I really doubt that SLE11 users are using d:l:p anymore (but I can be wrong).

[1] https://build.opensuse.org/project/monitor/devel:languages:python

Maybe we can take a half step instead. Keep the repo's enabled but advise maintainers that they are not obliged to keep SLE-11 building if it requires additional effort on there behalf, in that way the people that do care about having package X available on SLE-11 and that are willing to make it work can do so. Packages that are unresolvable, known to have bugs that stop them working in a significant manner or will have security issues under SLE-11 should be disabled for build on SLE-11 with the reason documented somewhere so people know what it takes to get re enabled. We could extend this further to packages not building (when someone branches the package its easy enough to see why it was disabled). These packages could then be reenabled for build if someone steps up to fix them. If we get to a point in the future where say 75% (or any other agreed number) of packages are disabled or failing to build we could then question again whether its worth dropping the repo as a whole. Cheers -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adeliade Australia, UTC+9:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B

On 11/22/2016 05:51 PM, Simon Lees wrote:

Maybe we can take a half step instead.

Keep the repo's enabled but advise maintainers that they are not obliged to keep SLE-11 building if it requires additional effort on there behalf, in that way the people that do care about having package X available on SLE-11 and that are willing to make it work can do so. Packages that are unresolvable, known to have bugs that stop them working in a significant manner or will have security issues under SLE-11 should be disabled for build on SLE-11 with the reason documented somewhere so people know what it takes to get re enabled. We could extend this further to packages not building (when someone branches the package its easy enough to see why it was disabled). These packages could then be reenabled for build if someone steps up to fix them.

If we get to a point in the future where say 75% (or any other agreed number) of packages are disabled or failing to build we could then question again whether its worth dropping the repo as a whole.

Cheers

This sounds extremely reasonable and better to me than actively removing all SLE11 compatibility workarounds, at least at the present time. -- Jason Craig -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 10:11 AM, jan matejek wrote:

On 23.11.2016 01:51, Simon Lees wrote:

...

Maybe we can take a half step instead.

Keep the repo's enabled but advise maintainers that they are not obliged to keep SLE-11 building if it requires additional effort on there behalf, in that way the people that do care about having package X available on SLE-11 and that are willing to make it work can do so. Packages that are unresolvable, known to have bugs that stop them working in a significant manner or will have security issues under SLE-11 should be disabled for build on SLE-11 with the reason documented somewhere so people know what it takes to get re enabled. We could extend this further to packages not building (when someone branches the package its easy enough to see why it was disabled). These packages could then be reenabled for build if someone steps up to fix them.

If we get to a point in the future where say 75% (or any other agreed number) of packages are disabled or failing to build we could then question again whether its worth dropping the repo as a whole.

Cheers

how about a three-quarters-step?

Keep the repo and disable building by default. IIUC this should also keep built packages intact, and allow people who use SLE11 to enable support as required.

This would also show how many packages the SLE11 people actually care about.

regards m.

This sounds more reasonable. But the fact that more than 1/3 of the packages are already either failing, unresolvable, or disabled suggests to me that people don't care that much about SLE-11. And keep in mind the number of failing packages is going to go up once the packages that currently are only present in devel:languages:python3 are merged into devel:languages:python. The question I guess is how easy it will be to handle the lack of python 3 and noarch support in the single spec file system. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Simon Lees wrote:

On 11/23/2016 03:47 AM, Alberto Planas Dominguez wrote:

...

On Tue, 2016-11-22 at 17:43 +0100, Christian wrote:

...

Am 22.11.2016 um 17:29 schrieb Robert Schweikert:

...

As proposed I oppose the change.

I oppose the change, too.

Can we extend a bit more? As I see in monitoring[1] there are several packages that do not build in sle11 anymore. According to the page there are

* succeeded: 1386 * failed: 154 * unresolvable: 175 * broken: 3 * disabled: 239

So a significant portion of the packages are not working.

I really doubt that SLE11 users are using d:l:p anymore (but I can be wrong).

[1] https://build.opensuse.org/project/monitor/devel:languages:python

Maybe we can take a half step instead.

Keep the repo's enabled but advise maintainers that they are not obliged to keep SLE-11 building if it requires additional effort on there behalf, in that way the people that do care about having package X available on SLE-11 and that are willing to make it work can do so. Packages that are unresolvable, known to have bugs that stop them working in a significant manner or will have security issues under SLE-11 should be disabled for build on SLE-11 with the reason documented somewhere so people know what it takes to get re enabled. We could extend this further to packages not building (when someone branches the package its easy enough to see why it was disabled). These packages could then be reenabled for build if someone steps up to fix them.

From what I recall this is already the policy. The problem is that "the people that do care" aren't stepping up to do the work, but failing packages keep getting re-enabled and left failing.

SLE-11 is the only supported platform that doesn't support Python 3 and, more importantly, the only supported platform that doesn't support noarch Python packages. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org