Re: Quick analysis of the Python dist-packages transition
Josselin Mouette
> * 246 packages don’t, but should work as well provided that we
> ensure python-central is fixed.
I forgot to explain how exactly it needs to be fixed.
> * python-central needs a NMU to
> handle /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages as a source directory.
It needs to support /usr/local/lib/python2.6/{dist,site}-packages as
well. Otherwise, 83 more packages will have to be changed.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “I recommend you to learn English in hope that you in
`- future understand things” -- Jörg Schilling
Josselin Mouette
starting from Python 2.6, the Debian packages look for modules in a
different directory: /usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages instead
of /usr/lib/python2.X/site-packages. This is handled transparently by
python-central and python-support, but at install time, distutils (the
thingy behind “python setup.py”) installs modules in another directory
by default, and the packaging has to cope with it.
Therefore, a number of packages have to be fixed before they can work
with python2.6. Practically speaking, this is the only thing that
prevents python2.6 from entering unstable. This is a first attempt at
listing packages needing to be fixed.
There are 1396 source packages using python-central or python-support in
Debian. (The analysis excludes packages not using them since they are
already broken.)
* 505 of these packages do not use distutils and should not be
affected, still shipping files to site-packages/. However,
according to Scott Kimmermann (who handled parts of this
transition in Ubuntu), python-central does not look for modules
in /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages, so most modules using it
are broken. If this is the case, python-central needs to be
NMUed to handle such packages.
* 73 packages don’t use the shipped setup.py and use a
Debian-specific installation system (e.g. to install modules in
a private directory).
* 818 packages use distutils/setuptools for installation.
I - CDBS: 310 packages
CDBS needs updating to work with python2.6. A patch was proposed by
Martin Pitt in #537373 and the maintainers have already agreed for a
NMU, so it’s just a matter of uploading it. In the meantime, Piotr
Ożarowski proposed another idea (setting --install-lib instead of
--install-layout) which looks much cleaner, so we’ll probably use that
approach instead. In all cases this will be done soon.
* 269 CDBS packages should not be affected.
* 41 packages fiddle with site-packages. If either Martin’s or
Piotr’s approach is used, they won’t need updating.
II - DH: 143 packages
Debhelper has already been updated so that dh uses --install-layout=deb.
* 141 DH packages should already work.
* 2 packages fiddle with site-packages and need updating.
III - Debhelper: 438 packages
* 52 packages already use --install-layout=deb and don’t play with
site-packages.
* 246 packages don’t, but should work as well provided that we
ensure python-central is fixed.
* 73 packages fiddle with site-packages and need updating.
Overall summary:
* CDBS needs to be updated (should be done in a week at most).
* python-central needs a NMU to
handle /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages as a source directory.
* 75 Python packages need to be updated, the dd-list is attached.
If there are no objections, I will submit a MBF for those 75 packages in
a few days.
Cheers,
Mikhail Gusarov
Twas brillig at 21:18:16 18.09.2009 UTC+02 when jo...@debian.org did gyre and gimble:
JM> Mikhail Gusarov <dott...@dottedmag.net>
JM> python-pytils
Fixed and passed to Piotr for sponsoring.
Ben Finney
> Therefore, a number of packages have to be fixed before they can work
> with python2.6. Practically speaking, this is the only thing that
> prevents python2.6 from entering unstable. This is a first attempt at
> listing packages needing to be fixed.
Thank you for this work, and for communicating the results in these
forums. This also allows us to have a better idea how far Python 2.6 is
From unstable.
--
\ “A thorough reading and understanding of the Bible is the |
`\ surest path to atheism.” —Donald Morgan |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Raphael Hertzog
> If there are no objections, I will submit a MBF for those 75 packages in
> a few days.
Go ahead, we have waited too much for python 2.6 already.
Cheers,
--
Raphaï¿œl Hertzog
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Alexandre Rossi
Luca Falavigna
Alexandre Rossi <alexand...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> Fixed package is awaiting sponsorship at mentors.debian.net
To speed things up, if you haven't a regular sponsor or if he/she is
busy ATM, please join #debian-python on OFTC and add pointers to your
packages to the channel topic, they will be processed quicker.
Regards,
--
.''`.
: :' : Luca Falavigna <dktr...@debian.org>
`. `'
`-
Steve Langasek
> * 505 of these packages do not use distutils and should not be
> affected, still shipping files to site-packages/. However,
> according to Scott Kimmermann (who handled parts of this
> transition in Ubuntu), python-central does not look for modules
> in /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages, so most modules using it
> are broken.
What do you mean, "look for" modules there? Are you proposing that these
packages ship files under /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages, or that
python-central find modules under this directory at build-time and move them
to /usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages?
AIUI, the former would be contrary to upstream's wishes regarding the
organization of distro-provided modules.
> If this is the case, python-central needs to be NMUed to handle
> such packages.
There is no bug filed against python-central for this. An NMU would be out
of order.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slan...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
Piotr Ożarowski
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 09:18:16PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > * 505 of these packages do not use distutils and should not be
> > affected, still shipping files to site-packages/. However,
> > according to Scott Kimmermann (who handled parts of this
> > transition in Ubuntu), python-central does not look for modules
> > in /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages, so most modules using it
> > are broken.
>
> What do you mean, "look for" modules there? Are you proposing that these
> packages ship files under /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages, or that
> python-central find modules under this directory at build-time and move them
> to /usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages?
no, move them to /usr/share/pyshared, just like it does with
dist-packages
> There is no bug filed against python-central for this.
I will file a bug in a minute (not that it will change much)
--
Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer
www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org
GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645
Josselin Mouette
> a few days.
Done, omitting a reported false positive and a few packages fixed in the
meantime.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=debian...@lists.debian.org;tag=python2.6
Stefano Zacchiroli
> Done, omitting a reported false positive and a few packages fixed in the
> meantime.
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=debian...@lists.debian.org;tag=python2.6
Thanks.
Question: why the severity is only "important"?
Shouldn't we aim at uploading python 2.6 to unstable really soon now? In
that respect, if I understand the problems you mentioned in the first
post correctly, those bugs should be better made RC.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:36:09PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Done, omitting a reported false positive and a few packages fixed in the
>> meantime.
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=debian...@lists.debian.org;tag=python2.6
>
> Thanks.
>
> Question: why the severity is only "important"?
>
> Shouldn't we aim at uploading python 2.6 to unstable really soon now? In
> that respect, if I understand the problems you mentioned in the first
> post correctly, those bugs should be better made RC.
I guess they will be RC once python2.6 is uploaded to unstable (and made the
default) since they will FTBFS. That won't impede python2.6 being uploaded soon.
Cheers,
Emilio