Debian Bug report logs - #936146
archivemail: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at maintonly@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org>

To: maintonly@bugs.debian.org

Subject: archivemail: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 07:10:34 +0000

Package: src:archivemail
Version: 0.9.0-1.1
Severity: normal
Tags: sid bullseye
User: debian-python@lists.debian.org
Usertags: py2removal

Python2 becomes end-of-live upstream, and Debian aims to remove
Python2 from the distribution, as discussed in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2019/07/msg00080.html

Your package either build-depends, depends on Python2, or uses Python2
in the autopkg tests.  Please stop using Python2, and fix this issue
by one of the following actions.

- Convert your Package to Python3. This is the preferred option.  In
  case you are providing a Python module foo, please consider dropping
  the python-foo package, and only build a python3-foo package.  Please
  don't drop Python2 modules, which still have reverse dependencies,
  just document them.
  
  This is the preferred option.

- If the package is dead upstream, cannot be converted or maintained
  in Debian, it should be removed from the distribution.  If the
  package still has reverse dependencies, raise the severity to
  "serious" and document the reverse dependencies with the BTS affects
  command.  If the package has no reverse dependencies, confirm that
  the package can be removed, reassign this issue to ftp.debian.org,
  make sure that the bug priority is set to normal and retitle the
  issue to "RM: PKG -- removal triggered by the Python2 removal".

- If the package has still many users (popcon >= 300), or is needed to
  build another package which cannot be removed, document that by
  adding the "py2keep" user tag (not replacing the py2remove tag),
  using the debian-python@lists.debian.org user.  Also any
  dependencies on an unversioned python package (python, python-dev)
  must not be used, same with the python shebang.  These have to be
  replaced by python2/python2.7 dependencies and shebang.

  This is the least preferred option.

If the conversion or removal needs action on another package first,
please document the blocking by using the BTS affects command, like

  affects <bug number of blocking py2removal bug> + src:archivemail

If there is no py2removal bug for that reverse-dependency, please file
a bug on this package (similar to this bug report).

If there are questions, please refer to the wiki page for the removal:
https://wiki.debian.org/Python/2Removal, or ask for help on IRC
#debian-python, or the debian-python@lists.debian.org mailing list.

Message #10 received at 936146@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>

To: 936146@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936146: archivemail: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 13:43:28 -0700

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello,

On Fri 30 Aug 2019 at 07:10AM +00, Matthias Klose wrote:

> Your package either build-depends, depends on Python2, or uses Python2
> in the autopkg tests.  Please stop using Python2, and fix this issue
> by one of the following actions.
>
> - Convert your Package to Python3. This is the preferred option.  In
>   case you are providing a Python module foo, please consider dropping
>   the python-foo package, and only build a python3-foo package.  Please
>   don't drop Python2 modules, which still have reverse dependencies,
>   just document them.
>
>   This is the preferred option.
>
> - If the package is dead upstream, cannot be converted or maintained
>   in Debian, it should be removed from the distribution.  If the
>   package still has reverse dependencies, raise the severity to
>   "serious" and document the reverse dependencies with the BTS affects
>   command.  If the package has no reverse dependencies, confirm that
>   the package can be removed, reassign this issue to ftp.debian.org,
>   make sure that the bug priority is set to normal and retitle the
>   issue to "RM: PKG -- removal triggered by the Python2 removal".

I intend to take a shot at converting the package.

archivemail's upstream is not active but the package continues to work
well.

-- 
Sean Whitton

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #15 received at 936146@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name>

To: 936146@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936146: archivemail: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2019 10:13:05 -0700

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello,

On Fri 30 Aug 2019 at 01:43PM -07, Sean Whitton wrote:

> I intend to take a shot at converting the package.

I'm no longer intending to do this, having rewritten the subset of
archivemail's functionality that I need using perl's Mail::Box module.

-- 
Sean Whitton

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #26 received at 936146@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Scott Talbert <swt@techie.net>

To: 936146@bugs.debian.org

Subject: archivemail - Python 3 porting

Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 15:31:31 -0400 (EDT)

archivemail seems to be a good candidate to RM due to dead upstream. 
However, it still has a relatively high popcon, so people seem to be using 
it.

I'm willing to take a stab at porting to Python 3 if anyone is available 
to test it?  The port effort doesn't look that bad at first glance, but I 
don't use this package.

Scott

Message #31 received at 936146@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>

To: Scott Talbert <swt@techie.net>, 936146@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936146: archivemail - Python 3 porting

Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 14:34:18 +0100

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 03:31:31PM -0400, Scott Talbert wrote:
>archivemail seems to be a good candidate to RM due to dead upstream. 
>However, it still has a relatively high popcon, so people seem to be 
>using it.
>
>I'm willing to take a stab at porting to Python 3 if anyone is 
>available to test it?  The port effort doesn't look that bad at first 
>glance, but I don't use this package.

I'm happy to test anything you produce, but I'd warn you that I think
it's quite a significant piece of work. From what I remember when I last
looked at hacking a feature into it (#736327), archivemail uses the
older of two different APIs provided by the python "mailbox" library,
and only the newer one was carried forward to Python 3. So moving away
from that older API is a big part of the work. 


-- 
👱🏻	Jonathan Dowland
✎	 jmtd@debian.org
🔗	https://jmtd.net

Message #36 received at 936146@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Scott Talbert <swt@techie.net>

To: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>

Cc: 936146@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936146: archivemail - Python 3 porting

Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 13:56:59 -0400 (EDT)

On Tue, 26 May 2020, Jonathan Dowland wrote:

>> archivemail seems to be a good candidate to RM due to dead upstream. 
>> However, it still has a relatively high popcon, so people seem to be using 
>> it.
>> 
>> I'm willing to take a stab at porting to Python 3 if anyone is available to 
>> test it?  The port effort doesn't look that bad at first glance, but I 
>> don't use this package.
>
> I'm happy to test anything you produce, but I'd warn you that I think
> it's quite a significant piece of work. From what I remember when I last
> looked at hacking a feature into it (#736327), archivemail uses the
> older of two different APIs provided by the python "mailbox" library,
> and only the newer one was carried forward to Python 3. So moving away
> from that older API is a big part of the work.

You were right.  This was harder than I expected.  :)  Mainly it is 
exactly as you described - the rfc822.Message class (which doesn't exist 
in Python 3) does not map exactly to the email.message.Message class.  I'm 
stuck at the moment with figuring out how to calculate the message size. 
In rfc822.Message, you could access the file handle directly and get the 
size that way.

Scott

Message #45 received at 936146@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org>

To: 936146@bugs.debian.org, Scott Talbert <swt@techie.net>, Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#936146: archivemail - Python 3 porting

Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 00:37:36 -0400

Hey Scott and Jonathan,

On Thu, 28 May 2020 13:56:59 -0400 (EDT) Scott Talbert <swt@techie.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 2020, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>
> >> archivemail seems to be a good candidate to RM due to dead upstream.
> >> However, it still has a relatively high popcon, so people seem to be using
> >> it.
> >>
> >> I'm willing to take a stab at porting to Python 3 if anyone is available to
> >> test it?  The port effort doesn't look that bad at first glance, but I
> >> don't use this package.
> >
> > I'm happy to test anything you produce, but I'd warn you that I think
> > it's quite a significant piece of work. From what I remember when I last
> > looked at hacking a feature into it (#736327), archivemail uses the
> > older of two different APIs provided by the python "mailbox" library,
> > and only the newer one was carried forward to Python 3. So moving away
> > from that older API is a big part of the work.
>
> You were right.  This was harder than I expected.  :)  Mainly it is
> exactly as you described - the rfc822.Message class (which doesn't exist
> in Python 3) does not map exactly to the email.message.Message class.  I'm
> stuck at the moment with figuring out how to calculate the message size.
> In rfc822.Message, you could access the file handle directly and get the
> size that way.

do you have any plan on completing this port? I'm not a user of
archivemail but it looks like it should be removed, not salvaged:

* no new upstream releases since 2011 (!)
* last upload to debian in 2014
* retired from fedora: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1777616

maybe it's time to let it go?

If i dont hear otherwise in a week, i'll file for its removal

Regards,
-- 
Sandro "morph" Tosi
My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi

Message #50 received at 936146@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Scott Talbert <swt@techie.net>

To: Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org>

Cc: 936146@bugs.debian.org, Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#936146: archivemail - Python 3 porting

Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 08:52:54 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 27 Jul 2020, Sandro Tosi wrote:

> On Thu, 28 May 2020 13:56:59 -0400 (EDT) Scott Talbert <swt@techie.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 May 2020, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>>
>>>> archivemail seems to be a good candidate to RM due to dead upstream.
>>>> However, it still has a relatively high popcon, so people seem to be using
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> I'm willing to take a stab at porting to Python 3 if anyone is available to
>>>> test it?  The port effort doesn't look that bad at first glance, but I
>>>> don't use this package.
>>>
>>> I'm happy to test anything you produce, but I'd warn you that I think
>>> it's quite a significant piece of work. From what I remember when I last
>>> looked at hacking a feature into it (#736327), archivemail uses the
>>> older of two different APIs provided by the python "mailbox" library,
>>> and only the newer one was carried forward to Python 3. So moving away
>>> from that older API is a big part of the work.
>>
>> You were right.  This was harder than I expected.  :)  Mainly it is
>> exactly as you described - the rfc822.Message class (which doesn't exist
>> in Python 3) does not map exactly to the email.message.Message class.  I'm
>> stuck at the moment with figuring out how to calculate the message size.
>> In rfc822.Message, you could access the file handle directly and get the
>> size that way.
>
> do you have any plan on completing this port? I'm not a user of
> archivemail but it looks like it should be removed, not salvaged:
>
> * no new upstream releases since 2011 (!)
> * last upload to debian in 2014
> * retired from fedora: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1777616
>
> maybe it's time to let it go?
>
> If i dont hear otherwise in a week, i'll file for its removal

No, I kind of gave up.  It did turn out to be harder than I expected, and 
some of the APIs in the older email APIs don't exist in the new ones, so 
it wasn't clear what to do there.

I would say it can go, but I don't use it so my opinion doesn't matter 
much.

Scott

Message #57 received at 936146@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>

To: Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org>

Cc: 936146@bugs.debian.org, Scott Talbert <swt@techie.net>

Subject: Re: Bug#936146: archivemail - Python 3 porting

Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 11:12:51 +0100

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:37:36AM -0400, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>do you have any plan on completing this port? I'm not a user of
>archivemail but it looks like it should be removed, not salvaged:
>
>* no new upstream releases since 2011 (!)
>* last upload to debian in 2014
>* retired from fedora: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1777616
>
>maybe it's time to let it go?
>
>If i dont hear otherwise in a week, i'll file for its removal

I think I'm happy for it to go. I'm certainly not going to be able to
work on porting it, and I'm most likely going to move to something else
for the purposes I use it.

Thanks,

-- 
👱🏻	Jonathan Dowland
✎	 jmtd@debian.org
🔗	https://jmtd.net

Message #62 received at 936146@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de>

To: 936146@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936146: archivemail - Python 3 porting

Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2020 14:57:30 +0200

Hi!

I used this frequently enough to be hesitant to let apt dist-upgrade 
remove it on my system currently.

But I understand it may not make sense to port it as its hard and 
upstream is not active anymore.

Is there an alternative in Debian repository?

Best,
-- 
Martin

Message #67 received at 936146@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>

To: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>

Cc: Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org>, 936146@bugs.debian.org, Scott Talbert <swt@techie.net>

Subject: Re: Bug#936146: archivemail - Python 3 porting

Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 22:40:05 +0200

On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 11:12:51AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:37:36AM -0400, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> > do you have any plan on completing this port? I'm not a user of
> > archivemail but it looks like it should be removed, not salvaged:
> > 
> > * no new upstream releases since 2011 (!)
> > * last upload to debian in 2014
> > * retired from fedora: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1777616
> > 
> > maybe it's time to let it go?
> > 
> > If i dont hear otherwise in a week, i'll file for its removal
> 
> I think I'm happy for it to go. I'm certainly not going to be able to
> work on porting it, and I'm most likely going to move to something else
> for the purposes I use it.

Since there were no further objections, I've just filed a removal bug.

Cheers,
        Moritz

Message #72 received at 936146-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Debian FTP Masters <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>

To: 149794-done@bugs.debian.org,149955-done@bugs.debian.org,184124-done@bugs.debian.org,265321-done@bugs.debian.org,505070-done@bugs.debian.org,736327-done@bugs.debian.org,845277-done@bugs.debian.org,936146-done@bugs.debian.org,

Cc: archivemail@packages.debian.org

Subject: Bug#972653: Removed package(s) from unstable

Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 19:46:09 +0000

Version: 0.9.0-1.1+rm

Dear submitter,

as the package archivemail has just been removed from the Debian archive
unstable we hereby close the associated bug reports.  We are sorry
that we couldn't deal with your issue properly.

For details on the removal, please see https://bugs.debian.org/972653

The version of this package that was in Debian prior to this removal
can still be found using http://snapshot.debian.org/.

Please note that the changes have been done on the master archive and
will not propagate to any mirrors until the next dinstall run at the
earliest.

This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is
a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing
ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Joerg Jaspert (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.