Debian Bug report logs - #936270
calibre: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

Display info 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: calibre: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 07:12:46 +0000

Package: src:calibre
Version: 3.46.0+dfsg-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:calibre

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 #14 received at 936270-maintonly@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info>

To: Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org>, 936270-maintonly@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936270: calibre: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 22:13:51 +0900

Hi Matthias,

On Fri, 30 Aug 2019, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Package: src:calibre
> Usertags: py2removal

Sure enough, but there is one stumbling block: mechanize.

You are listed as one of the uploaders. python-mechanize is like, well,
stone-age old ... the current version is 0.2.5 from 2012 ...

Would you mind updating to the latest release 0.4.3 which came out about
12 days ago, or any of the 0.4 releases? And in the same step also add
the python3 version, which is now supported. 

Thanks in advance

Norbert

--
PREINING Norbert                               http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. + IFMGA ProGuide + TU Wien + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Dev
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Message #19 received at 936270-maintonly@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org>

To: Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info>, 936270-maintonly@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936270: calibre: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 03:15:36 +0200

On 30.08.19 15:13, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
> 
> On Fri, 30 Aug 2019, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> Package: src:calibre
>> Usertags: py2removal
> 
> Sure enough, but there is one stumbling block: mechanize.
> 
> You are listed as one of the uploaders. python-mechanize is like, well,
> stone-age old ... the current version is 0.2.5 from 2012 ...
> 
> Would you mind updating to the latest release 0.4.3 which came out about
> 12 days ago, or any of the 0.4 releases? And in the same step also add
> the python3 version, which is now supported.

that's the former zope team, which is mostly MIA. Feel free to adopt the 
package, or package the new version as a NMU.

Message #24 received at 936270-maintonly@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info>

To: Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org>, 936270-maintonly@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936270: calibre: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2019 10:23:49 +0900

Hi Matthias,

On Sat, 31 Aug 2019, Matthias Klose wrote:
> that's the former zope team, which is mostly MIA. Feel free to adopt the
> package, or package the new version as a NMU.

Yeah, so it seems. zope2.13 and the other rdepends are all unmaintained
since 5+ years, impressive.

Wouldn't it be better to remove this old cruft from sid?

I will look into packaging a new version of mechanize.

Norbert

--
PREINING Norbert                               http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. + IFMGA ProGuide + TU Wien + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Dev
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Message #39 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: peter green <plugwash@p10link.net>

To: 936270@bugs.debian.org

Cc: control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: calibre: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 12:31:25 +0100

severity 936270 serious
thanks

calibre depends on python-cherrypy3 which has already been dropped by the cherrypy3 source package.

Message #46 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info>

To: peter green <plugwash@p10link.net>,936270@bugs.debian.org

Cc: control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936270: calibre: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 21:42:23 +0900

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

clone 936270 -1 
reassign -1 src:python-cherrypy3
retitle -1 removal of p2 version breaks rdepends
thanks

Dear cherrypi maintainers,

I strongly recommend checking on rdepends before dropping packages, thanks.

Norbert

On September 25, 2019 8:31:25 PM GMT+09:00, peter green <plugwash@p10link.net> wrote:
>severity 936270 serious
>thanks
>
>calibre depends on python-cherrypy3 which has already been dropped by
>the cherrypy3 source package.


--
PREINING Norbert http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Developer
GPG: 0x860CDC13 fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #51 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info>

To: peter green <plugwash@p10link.net>,936270@bugs.debian.org

Cc: control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936270: calibre: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 21:44:11 +0900

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

severity 936270 normal
thanks

As long as the rdepends is in place the p2 version will not be removed from unstable nor testing, and thus the package still builds and works, nothing serious here but the fact that cherrypi maintainers didn't consider rdepends.

Adjusting severity.

Thanks

On September 25, 2019 8:31:25 PM GMT+09:00, peter green <plugwash@p10link.net> wrote:
>severity 936270 serious
>thanks
>
>calibre depends on python-cherrypy3 which has already been dropped by
>the cherrypy3 source package.


--
PREINING Norbert http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Developer
GPG: 0x860CDC13 fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #60 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stuart Prescott <stuart@debian.org>

To: 936270@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936270: calibre: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 19:51:28 +1100

Control: severity -1 serious

On Wednesday, 25 September 2019 22:44:11 AEDT Norbert Preining wrote:
> As long as the rdepends is in place the p2 version will not be removed from
> unstable nor testing, and thus the package still builds and works, nothing
> serious here but the fact that cherrypi maintainers didn't consider
> rdepends.

Debian bullseye is required to be self-hosting, that is, everything within 
main can be compiled using just the things in main. Any effort to rebuild 
bullseye would currently fail because there would be no Python 2 module for 
cherrypy3 available.

While python-cherrypy3 should not yet have been dropped, the reality is that 
it has been. This bug is RC just like any other bug about depending on 
packages that no longer exist. (I have double checked this with #debian-
release btw.)

Trying to drop Python 2 is going to be a messy process and we're going to see 
a lot of bugs like these, with packages being dropped from testing and then 
coming back when they are ported. 

regards
Stuart


-- 
Stuart Prescott    http://www.nanonanonano.net/   stuart@nanonanonano.net
Debian Developer   http://www.debian.org/         stuart@debian.org
GPG fingerprint    90E2 D2C1 AD14 6A1B 7EBB 891D BBC1 7EBB 1396 F2F7

Message #67 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>

To: 936270@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Please fix calibre, or get it out of Debian

Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 16:05:04 +0200

Hi Norbert,

cherrypy3 got python2 removed because the same happened to objgraph
before that. See:
https://tracker.debian.org/news/1060068/accepted-objgraph-341-2-source-into-unstable/

I don't mind reverting the change to cherrypy3, but the the work must be
done on objgraph first, otherwise cherrypy3 wont build. Though I find it
particularly counter-productive, since we're not seeing any progress
being done on calibre, neither upstream or in Debian.

There's no need to drag your feet, or complain, it wont change the fact
that Python2 is being removed from Bullseye because it's dead upstream
on the 1st of January next year. Making artificially cherrypy3 RC buggy,
while the package is in perfect shape isn't helpful either, and this
needs to be reverted.

Your thoughts?
Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

P.S: Please don't be aggressive with me or anyone else, as you are used
to, this wont help. Doing BTS ping-pong wont help either.

Message #72 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info>

To: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>, 936270@bugs.debian.org

Cc: community@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936270: Please fix calibre, or get it out of Debian

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 07:12:46 +0900

Hi Thomas,

thanks for your email. 
In case you decide to return to generally agreed upon community
standards of communication, including the CoC, and stop spreading
FUD and lies, I will happily discuss with you the issues at hand.

FUD and lie:
> particularly counter-productive, since we're not seeing any progress
> being done on calibre, neither upstream or in Debian.

Lie:
> to, this wont help. Doing BTS ping-pong wont help either.

Best

Norbert

--
PREINING Norbert                               http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. + IFMGA ProGuide + TU Wien + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Dev
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Message #77 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: John Scott <jscott@posteo.net>

To: 936270@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Please fix calibre, or get it out of Debian

Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 19:44:24 -0400

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

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 16:05:04 +0200 Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:
>  it wont change the fact that Python2 is being removed from Bullseye 
because it's dead upstream on the 1st of January next year.

That's not a fact, Bullseye can still ship with Python 2 if needed
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=931659#17

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

Message #82 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>

To: 936270@bugs.debian.org

Cc: community@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936270: Please fix calibre, or get it out of Debian

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 03:56:31 +0200

Hi Norbert,

I wrote to you not to be aggressive, because I've seen so many posts of
yours toward everyone. Yet, you still call me a liar. On top of this,
you give yourself the permission to lecture me about the CoC. Well done!

Now, let be still, despite your tone, to go to the bottom of the issue.

On 10/15/19 12:12 AM, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> thanks for your email. 
> In case you decide to return to generally agreed upon community
> standards of communication, including the CoC, and stop spreading
> FUD and lies, I will happily discuss with you the issues at hand.
> 
> FUD and lie:
>> particularly counter-productive, since we're not seeing any progress
>> being done on calibre, neither upstream or in Debian.

It's been nearly a month that the calibre package is in this shape, ie
not converted to Python 3. Besides this:

https://github.com/kovidgoyal/calibre/blob/master/setup.py#L20

How is this a lie? There's no FUD either, just facts. There's also this,
from the author itself:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/calibre/+bug/1714107

I don't see any sign that the upstream author has changed his mind, and
is willing to do the work of moving to Python 3. Or has this changed? If
so, please point to some upstream commit showing there's ongoing work.
Then you'll be able to tell me I was *mistaking* (and not lying).

BTW, if you're not aware, we just discussed, within the Python team,
about raising the severity of packages using Python 2 to serious. That's
regardless of what happened the dependency of the package. So even if I
revert the upload of cherrypy3 (which, again, can only happen if
tumbleweed does it on objgraph), your package will have to continue to
be RC.

I very much have the same opinion as Neil Williams here:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2019/10/msg00043.html

Also, IMO you are mistaking when referring to Doko's mail about keeping
python 2 application. I don't think this would include something like
Calibre, unfortunately, especially it if has many Python 2 dependencies.

> Lie:
>> to, this wont help. Doing BTS ping-pong wont help either.

I completely fail to see where the lie is... You've downgraded the
severity for your package to normal, cloned it to cherrypy3 where you've
set the severity to serious. That's BTS ping-pong to me. Or did I miss
something?

In any case, CC-ing the community team is a good idea, especially when
gratuitously calling me a liar publicly.

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Message #87 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info>

To: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>, 936270@bugs.debian.org

Cc: community@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936270: Please fix calibre, or get it out of Debian

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:25:56 +0900

Hi Thomas,

On Tue, 15 Oct 2019, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> It's been nearly a month that the calibre package is in this shape, ie
> not converted to Python 3. Besides this:

Wrong. If you could step down from your github hate line, you could
check the experimental branch of the debian calibre package, which 
already is prepared for Python3.
	export CALIBRE_PY3_PORT=1
	SETUP=python3 setup.py
and it actually works. The only problem (AFAIS) at the moment are
- libqt is too old in Debian (5.12 has been released long ago)
- all the plugins will be broken.

> How is this a lie? There's no FUD either, just facts. There's also this,

Besides, that you never checked the facts, right? Have you build Calibre
once? have you tried to do it with Python3? You just rely on hearsay and
old bug reports. Very impressive.

> I don't see any sign that the upstream author has changed his mind, and
> is willing to do the work of moving to Python 3. Or has this changed? If

Yes it has, and looking (sorry, again your behated) at his github you
would have seen that there is considerable P3 conversion going on for
**months** now.

> so, please point to some upstream commit showing there's ongoing work.
> Then you'll be able to tell me I was *mistaking* (and not lying).

What about looking at
https://github.com/kovidgoyal/calibre/commits/master ??? I assume you
are able to understand commit messages like
	py3 compat
	Avoid error on python3 about str and bytes
	Fix failing test on py3
	py3 porting
etc etc etc.

> > Lie:
> >> to, this wont help. Doing BTS ping-pong wont help either.
> 
> I completely fail to see where the lie is... You've downgraded the
> severity for your package to normal, cloned it to cherrypy3 where you've
> set the severity to serious. That's BTS ping-pong to me. Or did I miss
> something?

No. Ping-pong would have been if I have re-downgraded after it was
raised recently. I accept the explanation of the recent raising of
severity, but my initial downgrade is completely in the authority
of the package maintainer.

So if you consider one time adjustment of severity a "ping-pong", then
about every maintainer here in Debian would play your so called
"ping-pong" game.

So please, stop calling out such things without providing reason.

> In any case, CC-ing the community team is a good idea, especially when
> gratuitously calling me a liar publicly.

Not gratuitously, not at all.

So please stop spreading FUD again and again, I am sick of it.
In your email you again spread lies like
	It's been nearly a month that the calibre package is in
	this shape, ie not converted to Python 3
and
	I don't see any sign that the upstream author has changed his mind, and
	is willing to do the work of moving to Python 3. Or has this changed? If
These kind of statements are the reason that upstream communication are
getting difficult. I have worked hard to get good communication with
upstream, and your unfounded statements, without even the slightest
trial to verify your statements are painful at best.

Before posting fake statements, please check the facts, they are public
in the git repositories.

Best

Norbert

--
PREINING Norbert                               http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. + IFMGA ProGuide + TU Wien + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Dev
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Message #92 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at>

To: Stuart Prescott <stuart@debian.org>, 936270@bugs.debian.org

Cc: python-cherrypy3@packages.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936270: calibre: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 18:36:30 +0900

severity 936270 important
thanks

Hi Stuart, hi Thomas,

@Thomas, thanks for reintroducing python-cherrypy3!

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019, Stuart Prescott wrote:
> bullseye would currently fail because there would be no Python 2 module for 
> cherrypy3 available.
> 
> While python-cherrypy3 should not yet have been dropped, the reality is that 
> it has been. This bug is RC just like any other bug about depending on 

Since the package has been introduced again, I am adjusting the
severity accordingly.

If you are of different opinion, please adjust again.

Thanks

Norbert

--
PREINING Norbert                               http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. + IFMGA ProGuide + TU Wien + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Dev
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Message #99 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve McIntyre <93sam@debian.org>

To: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>, 936270@bugs.debian.org

Cc: community@debian.org, norbert@preining.info

Subject: Re: Bug#936270: Please fix calibre, or get it out of Debian

Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 13:35:09 +0100

Thomas,

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 04:05:04PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>Hi Norbert,
>
>cherrypy3 got python2 removed because the same happened to objgraph
>before that. See:
>https://tracker.debian.org/news/1060068/accepted-objgraph-341-2-source-into-unstable/
>
>I don't mind reverting the change to cherrypy3, but the the work must be
>done on objgraph first, otherwise cherrypy3 wont build. Though I find it
>particularly counter-productive, since we're not seeing any progress
>being done on calibre, neither upstream or in Debian.
>
>There's no need to drag your feet, or complain, it wont change the fact
>that Python2 is being removed from Bullseye because it's dead upstream
>on the 1st of January next year. Making artificially cherrypy3 RC buggy,
>while the package is in perfect shape isn't helpful either, and this
>needs to be reverted.
>
>Your thoughts?
>Cheers,
>
>Thomas Goirand (zigo)
>
>P.S: Please don't be aggressive with me or anyone else, as you are used
>to, this wont help. Doing BTS ping-pong wont help either.

I don't see any need for the kind of provocation in this mail. How
does this help communication and collaboration?

You may see history of problematic communications, but your own tone
and words here are practically guaranteed to cause argument. Please
calm it down.

-- 
Steve McIntyre                                          93sam@debian.org
Debian Community Team                               community@debian.org

Message #104 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>

To: 936270@bugs.debian.org, Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at>

Subject: Re: Bug#936270: calibre: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 15:41:28 +0200

Norbert,

No worries for cherrypy3 py2 revival.

Though I still have a concern that you wrote your plan is to get Calibre
to use Py2 for how long as possible. IMO that shouldn't be the plan.
Your plan should be to try to fix the situation as early as possible,
rather than as late as possible.

I know it may be difficult to forecast, but do you think you could get a
reasonable timeline for the Py2 removal in Calibre?

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

P.S: Sorry for breaking the thread (ie: in-reply headers), as I can't
find your message in my thunderbird...

Message #109 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>

To: 936270@bugs.debian.org, Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at>

Subject: Re: Bug#936270: calibre: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 15:44:44 +0200

On 10/16/19 3:41 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Norbert,
> 
> No worries for cherrypy3 py2 revival.
> 
> Though I still have a concern that you wrote your plan is to get Calibre
> to use Py2 for how long as possible. IMO that shouldn't be the plan.
> Your plan should be to try to fix the situation as early as possible,
> rather than as late as possible.
> 
> I know it may be difficult to forecast, but do you think you could get a
> reasonable timeline for the Py2 removal in Calibre?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Thomas Goirand (zigo)
> 
> P.S: Sorry for breaking the thread (ie: in-reply headers), as I can't
> find your message in my thunderbird...
> 

Oh, I forgot to mention: (before and after I touched it) cherrypy3 seems
in a pretty bad shape, with lots of errors during the build process. I'm
not sure how this impacts Calibre, but if it does, I would invite you to
contribute to this package.

Hoping this helps,
Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Message #114 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at>

To: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>,936270@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936270: calibre: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 22:45:42 +0900

Hi Thomas,

The switch to Py3 is ready and can be done any time, any second. The experimental branch of my repo contains the code, and I have ready built packages here.

That said, I don't see any urgency to switch as long upstream does not switch, and we are still in bulleyes preparation. I can upload anytime a Py3 version if we are getting closer to release and instead hasn't switched.

Best

Norbert

--
PREINING Norbert http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Developer
GPG: 0x860CDC13 fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Message #119 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>

To: Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at>, 936270@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936270: calibre: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 18:05:49 +0200

On 10/16/19 3:45 PM, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> The switch to Py3 is ready and can be done any time, any second. The experimental branch of my repo contains the code, and I have ready built packages here.
> 
> That said, I don't see any urgency to switch as long upstream does not switch, and we are still in bulleyes preparation. I can upload anytime a Py3 version if we are getting closer to release and instead hasn't switched.
> 
> Best
> 
> Norbert

Hi Norbert,

Closer to the release means that all the reverse dependencies of your
package will have to get somehow fixed. If everyone does like this, then
that's too much work. If possible, it'd be best if that could happen
earlier than just the last moment. I'll let you decide when you think
that moment has come...

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Message #124 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at>

To: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>

Cc: 936270@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936270: calibre: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:26:53 +0900

Hi Thomas,

> Closer to the release means that all the reverse dependencies of your
> package will have to get somehow fixed. If everyone does like this, then
> that's too much work. If possible, it'd be best if that could happen

I agree, but let us look at reality:
- bullseye will be released maybe around spring 2021
- Py2 will be deprecated 2020/1/1

I think the deprecations of Py2 will trigger a considerable shift, even
within Calibre (but I must admit, this is a guess!). That means, even if
we wait 3 months till 2020/3, there is still approximately one year to
clean up the rest. The last *2* month have seen a considerable shift to
Py3 in Debian, so I guess that a year will be sufficient (ok, deducing
freeze period etc say 6 months).

So yes to your argument - I will not wait till shortly before the
release of Bullseye, but I will wait to see what happens after 2020/1/1
in Calibre.

Best

Norbert

--
PREINING Norbert                               http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. + IFMGA ProGuide + TU Wien + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Dev
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Message #129 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>

To: Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at>

Cc: 936270@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936270: calibre: Python2 removal in sid/bullseye

Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 18:07:32 +0200

On 10/17/19 1:26 AM, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
>> Closer to the release means that all the reverse dependencies of your
>> package will have to get somehow fixed. If everyone does like this, then
>> that's too much work. If possible, it'd be best if that could happen
> 
> I agree, but let us look at reality:
> - bullseye will be released maybe around spring 2021
> - Py2 will be deprecated 2020/1/1
> 
> I think the deprecations of Py2 will trigger a considerable shift, even
> within Calibre (but I must admit, this is a guess!). That means, even if
> we wait 3 months till 2020/3, there is still approximately one year to
> clean up the rest. The last *2* month have seen a considerable shift to
> Py3 in Debian, so I guess that a year will be sufficient (ok, deducing
> freeze period etc say 6 months).
> 
> So yes to your argument - I will not wait till shortly before the
> release of Bullseye, but I will wait to see what happens after 2020/1/1
> in Calibre.
> 
> Best
> 
> Norbert

Hi Norbert,

Waiting 3 to 6 months in this case seem very sensible to me. Thanks for
reconsidering as you did.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Message #184 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info>

To: 936270@bugs.debian.org

Cc: calibre@packages.debian.org

Subject: prevent removal

Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 00:16:47 +0900

user debian-python@lists.debian.org
usertags 936270 py2keep
thanks

Calibre does not fully support Python2 by now, its support is
experimental. There are experimental packages in Debian/experimental.
Furthermore, most (practically all) external plugins are not Python3
ready.

Our current policy is to wait till around 6/2020, and if by then
upstream hasn't switched to Py3 and forced the plugin authors to
upgrade, too, we switch anyway to the Py3 version, which is developed in
parallel in the experimental suite.

Best

Norbert

--
PREINING Norbert                               http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. + IFMGA ProGuide + TU Wien + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Dev
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Message #189 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@archlinux.org>

To: 936270@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936270: calibre: does not depend on cherrypy for a long time now

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 00:16:49 -0500

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

Hi.

I notice you've all made quite a kerfuffle over the cherrypy module,
with some people wishing to remove it for python2 from the Debian
archives, and some people wishing to keep it because calibre depends on it.

Please be advised that the calibre program dropped its dependency on
cherrypy in version 3.0, with the complete from-scratch rewrite of its
content-server component. This was a full major version and (as of the
time of this writing) 52 feature releases ago. The removal occurred on
Sun May 21 04:09:11 2017 via this commit:
https://github.com/kovidgoyal/calibre/commit/5ed88a0bf596ea4389ac4fe08ccf249c7693d04d

Please remove this ancient, unused dependency from the Debian packaging
for calibre, thereby clearing the way to dropping the python2-cherrypy
module. All it does is waste the disk space of calibre users.

-- 
Eli Schwartz
Arch Linux Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

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

Message #194 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info>

To: Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@archlinux.org>, 936270@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936270: calibre: does not depend on cherrypy for a long time now

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 15:55:45 +0900

Hi Eli,

thanks for your bug report.

> Please be advised that the calibre program dropped its dependency on
> cherrypy in version 3.0, with the complete from-scratch rewrite of its

Thanks, I didn't know. I took over Calibre at around 3.7 and expected
somehow that the dependencies are ok.

I have already removed the deps in the git repo, will be in the next
upload.

Thanks

Norbert

--
PREINING Norbert                               http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. + IFMGA ProGuide + TU Wien + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Dev
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Message #199 received at 936270-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info>

To: 936270-close@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#936270: fixed in calibre 4.4.0+dfsg-1

Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 08:39:47 +0000

Source: calibre
Source-Version: 4.4.0+dfsg-1

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
calibre, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.

A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 936270@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> (supplier of updated calibre package)

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


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 15:57:48 +0900
Source: calibre
Architecture: source
Version: 4.4.0+dfsg-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info>
Changed-By: Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info>
Closes: 936270
Changes:
 calibre (4.4.0+dfsg-1) unstable; urgency=medium
 .
   * New upstream version 4.4.0+dfsg
   * drop cherrypi deps (Closes: #936270)
Checksums-Sha1:
 bf28a3a014b02ad71c638c540f3ee2050d6b07c4 2578 calibre_4.4.0+dfsg-1.dsc
 519ffd71f45f073434dc8527c34cced9cd00f69b 35626752 calibre_4.4.0+dfsg.orig.tar.xz
 568effba1363997cdcc591496f0e4c61f7566a07 55520 calibre_4.4.0+dfsg-1.debian.tar.xz
 49304018cfa23e85d6c3de92a768da847b5b0773 19439 calibre_4.4.0+dfsg-1_source.buildinfo
Checksums-Sha256:
 7ec8b84acbdd5d7d4999c20fee4475b58ed1ec71c5f634218fab2347cf9e71cc 2578 calibre_4.4.0+dfsg-1.dsc
 071a80a2b365ef4f55abe2992bbfdab9ed5701f91a2e8eea56cbe2a8c90da582 35626752 calibre_4.4.0+dfsg.orig.tar.xz
 42a6b62f8b176b98b6e7bd7598063ae1b8b3c6843ff100c437234a5f669cabf5 55520 calibre_4.4.0+dfsg-1.debian.tar.xz
 9ff28104b8d9b22c627a68d402638df0e86db09f9496aa623c6916e40aaf8d39 19439 calibre_4.4.0+dfsg-1_source.buildinfo
Files:
 b380eb3161aabac1cb7b882eb163a431 2578 text optional calibre_4.4.0+dfsg-1.dsc
 a6bc1ece3bd24dde8bac36b22eae9544 35626752 text optional calibre_4.4.0+dfsg.orig.tar.xz
 11a79088877e448daaef8f35cf76dc75 55520 text optional calibre_4.4.0+dfsg-1.debian.tar.xz
 6271ee35135ca2a94de257bcbcb09380 19439 text optional calibre_4.4.0+dfsg-1_source.buildinfo

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEE68ws0vrA2voQX53I2A4JsIcUAGYFAl3XkgMACgkQ2A4JsIcU
AGaMAwgAh7WGD0Hmk1fjLVeFx9KtfXbuCV4eCCiaIQ0Aw/V/MSvmlzsKTpmv6J4a
2NbPehKGKnT0MiLINDFh6q4beXPdNMdlK/UVxPrWT11j8R7s5V93brmYMGWTyiRS
7ZFwgUOwo2XhxSdhjOUeIjsfiDTg32fydtar+anP6jrpZXthL++B+AKrNc+7sVcl
fBzPbhZnaPlhLE0LQc0F50O8gfT61/u+gQ/bw4B11WNcq6ksHP0xrqCqFEatqisd
RUINGI2nmjm5yfsAGpZnckm68aJ7bY5useYbgLpBQbTSHSUCEmYpzf139WNHKr2m
ljf7F9ivzgLrI5Y3lraJ3aVf7v8kGw==
=DdiX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Message #204 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Dmitry Shachnev <mitya57@debian.org>

To: 936270@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936270 closed by Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> (Bug#936270: fixed in calibre 4.4.0+dfsg-1)

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:24:58 +0300

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

Hi Norbert!

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 08:42:04AM +0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 08:39:47 +0000
> From: Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info>
> To: 936270-close@bugs.debian.org
> Subject: Bug#936270: fixed in calibre 4.4.0+dfsg-1
>
> Source: calibre
> Source-Version: 4.4.0+dfsg-1
>
> We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
> calibre, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.
>
> [...]
>
>  calibre (4.4.0+dfsg-1) unstable; urgency=medium
>  .
>    * New upstream version 4.4.0+dfsg
>    * drop cherrypi deps (Closes: #936270)

Why did you close this bug in 4.4.0+dfsg-1? As I can see, calibre still
uses Python 2 in sid, and only the experimental package uses Python 3.

Can I reopen this bug, or there was some logic?

Calibre currently blocks Python 2 removal in a lot of packages. As the
bug was closed, the blocks metadata was lost.

--
Dmitry Shachnev

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

Message #209 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info>

To: Dmitry Shachnev <mitya57@debian.org>, 936270@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936270: closed by Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> (Bug#936270: fixed in calibre 4.4.0+dfsg-1)

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 21:52:48 +0900

reopen 936270
found 936270
thanks

Hi Dmitry,

On Fri, 13 Dec 2019, Dmitry Shachnev wrote:
> >    * drop cherrypi deps (Closes: #936270)
> 
> Why did you close this bug in 4.4.0+dfsg-1? As I can see, calibre still
> uses Python 2 in sid, and only the experimental package uses Python 3.

Indeed this was complete rubbish, sorry. I somehow lost track of the
long email thread and saw the last emails about cherrypi only, and
thought the bug was about that.

Already reopened - and you don't need to ask for such an obvious error
of mine, just reopen it!

Thanks a lot!

Norbert

--
PREINING Norbert                               http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. + IFMGA ProGuide + TU Wien + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Dev
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Message #218 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@archlinux.org>

To: Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info>, 936270@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936270: calibre: plugins are now being ported to python3

Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 01:31:03 -0500

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

A little over an hour ago, Kovid has released Windows/Linux/macOS binary
builds of a python3 version of calibre, and alerted the plugin developer
community that it is time to start porting. Watch this space for updates:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=325721

-- 
Eli Schwartz
Arch Linux Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

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

Message #223 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info>

To: Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@archlinux.org>, 936270@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936270: calibre: plugins are now being ported to python3

Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 15:40:01 +0900

Hi Eli,

> A little over an hour ago, Kovid has released Windows/Linux/macOS binary
> builds of a python3 version of calibre, and alerted the plugin developer
> community that it is time to start porting. Watch this space for updates:

Thanks, that are great news!

Best

Norbert

--
PREINING Norbert                               http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. + IFMGA ProGuide + TU Wien + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Dev
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Message #228 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>

To: 936270@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Any update? We'll remove python-routes soon

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 23:54:29 +0100

Hi Norbert,

Sorry to be annoying, but is there any update on the Py2 removal
situation of Calibre? When do you think your package will be ready? As I
understand, Calibre itself is ready, but what about the plugins? Are the
most important plugins ready? Could we imagine that we could just leave
a few less important plugin behind for a short period, until the porting
is done?

Currently, we have the "routes" package affected by this bug: #938407
(ie: routes doesn't have py2 (build-)depends available anymore due to
early removal of py2 in other packages)).

Now, we have 2 alternatives: get routes py2 support removed, and then,
calibre py2 removal bug becomes RC, or we attempt to reintroduce a few
py2 packages like webtest and waitress. I don't think the later is
reasonable at this point in time, it'd be going on the wrong direction.

At the same time, having routes removed from testing means that about
nearly all of OpenStack will be removed at the same time. This is *not*
something I will let happen.

I don't think we should wait for another 6 months to act here.
Your thoughts?

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Message #233 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info>

To: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>, 936270@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936270: Any update? We'll remove python-routes soon

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2019 13:34:46 +0900

Hi Thomas,

On Mon, 23 Dec 2019, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> situation of Calibre? When do you think your package will be ready? As I
> understand, Calibre itself is ready, but what about the plugins? Are the

Kovid has announced the shift to Py3 [1], and asked the Plugin authors to
update their plugins. This is under way. At the same time several fixes
for the Py3 version were found. How far the plugins are updated I cannot
evaluate easily (as I don't use all the several hundreds of them).

> Now, we have 2 alternatives: get routes py2 support removed, and then,
> calibre py2 removal bug becomes RC, or we attempt to reintroduce a few

When will this happen?

> I don't think we should wait for another 6 months to act here.

Kovid himself plans to switch upstream officially around mid next year,
which is obviously too late for you.

When do you want to go ahead with the removal?

I have more or less given up on my opposition and go with the flow, so
if it is RC it is RC and I upload the Py3 version with its shortcomings.

Best

Norbert

[1] https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=325721

--
PREINING Norbert                               http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. + IFMGA ProGuide + TU Wien + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Dev
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Message #238 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org>

To: 936270@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936270: Any update? We'll remove python-routes soon

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2019 21:38:25 +0100

On 12/25/19 5:34 AM, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> On Mon, 23 Dec 2019, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> situation of Calibre? When do you think your package will be ready? As I
>> understand, Calibre itself is ready, but what about the plugins? Are the
> 
> Kovid has announced the shift to Py3 [1], and asked the Plugin authors to
> update their plugins. This is under way. At the same time several fixes
> for the Py3 version were found. How far the plugins are updated I cannot
> evaluate easily (as I don't use all the several hundreds of them).
> 
>> Now, we have 2 alternatives: get routes py2 support removed, and then,
>> calibre py2 removal bug becomes RC, or we attempt to reintroduce a few
> 
> When will this happen?
> 
>> I don't think we should wait for another 6 months to act here.
> 
> Kovid himself plans to switch upstream officially around mid next year,
> which is obviously too late for you.
> 
> When do you want to go ahead with the removal?

As much as I understand, the AUTORM process takes about 35 days since
the last activity in the BTS. If you see here:

https://bugs.debian.org/938407

this leads us to the end of January. Am I correct? If we get the package
AUTORM before that, then I'll upload a Py2 removal quickly.

> I have more or less given up on my opposition and go with the flow, so
> if it is RC it is RC and I upload the Py3 version with its shortcomings.

Hopefully, this sad situation will soon be addressed.

If you need some help with the Py3 porting, I'd be happy to help with
that. Maybe this can help: you could give a go with something like this:

apt-get install sixer
for i in $(find . -iname '*.py') ; do
	echo "===> $i"
	sixer all -w $i
done

This usually gives rather good (but often incomplete) results, if you
address all of the warning it shows (which are usually not hard to fix,
like print() calls for example), and if there's no too hard to address
bytes vs str problems.

Hoping this helps,
Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

Message #243 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@archlinux.org>

To: 936270@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936270: Any update? We'll remove python-routes soon

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2019 16:14:59 -0500

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

On 12/25/19 3:38 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> I have more or less given up on my opposition and go with the flow, so
>> if it is RC it is RC and I upload the Py3 version with its shortcomings.
> 
> Hopefully, this sad situation will soon be addressed.
> 
> If you need some help with the Py3 porting, I'd be happy to help with
> that. Maybe this can help: you could give a go with something like this:
> 
> apt-get install sixer
> for i in $(find . -iname '*.py') ; do
> 	echo "===> $i"
> 	sixer all -w $i
> done
> 
> This usually gives rather good (but often incomplete) results, if you
> address all of the warning it shows (which are usually not hard to fix,
> like print() calls for example), and if there's no too hard to address
> bytes vs str problems.

Are we discussing calibre itself, here, or the plugins? It's been
previously agreed that calibre itself is mostly ready.

The debian package maintainer doesn't have the power to fix arbitrary
user-installed plugins, hence why the community of *users* and plugin
creators is working on porting them.

The "shortcomings", then, are mainly about the almost complete lack of
plugin support (as of today).

That being said, given Debian deletes the plugin installer from the
menu, I'm not sure why Debian cares if plugins work.

...

There are also sporadic bug fixes for python3 compatibility as the beta
builds continue to see use, and users continue to find miscellaneous
errors when trying to use it with python3.

13 years of the program history says it's unlikely to crash at all under
python2; it is thus infinitely safer that way. python3 means you must
*expect* occasional issues where the port is incomplete. Thus there is
value in sticking with python2 for as long as possible, lest you receive
odd bug reports on occasion. But you'll need to decide on a balance
yourself.

Personally, I have the luxury of developing for a distro where it is
much easier to add and remove packages and roll out major updates on a
whim. And so I exercised my whim and uploaded a python3 build of
calibre, so that my users can choose whether to install it for python2
or python3. I'll most likely leave it that way until calibre releases
python3 support from beta.

-- 
Eli Schwartz
Arch Linux Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

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

Message #248 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info>

To: Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@archlinux.org>, 936270@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936270: Any update? We'll remove python-routes soon

Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 08:59:59 +0900

Hi Eli,

On Wed, 25 Dec 2019, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> Are we discussing calibre itself, here, or the plugins? It's been
> previously agreed that calibre itself is mostly ready.

Indeed, unfortunately all the fixes in the py3 branch are not merged
into a released tarball, and I am not eager to try to create orig
tarballs myself from the git repo (I looked into it, but it seems a lot
of stuff is needed in addition).

> The debian package maintainer doesn't have the power to fix arbitrary
> user-installed plugins, hence why the community of *users* and plugin
> creators is working on porting them.

Indeed, and that is great!

> The "shortcomings", then, are mainly about the almost complete lack of
> plugin support (as of today).

Yes, that is the current situation.

> That being said, given Debian deletes the plugin installer from the
> menu, I'm not sure why Debian cares if plugins work.

Huuu???? Maybe you are using something else, but **my** calibre has it:
Preferences -> Plugins ... I can (and do!) install plugins, both from
files as well as from the directory. And do updates.

You probably mean that piece of patch:
--- calibre-debian.git.orig/src/calibre/gui2/actions/preferences.py
+++ calibre-debian.git/src/calibre/gui2/actions/preferences.py
@@ -30,8 +30,6 @@ class PreferencesAction(InterfaceAction)
             pm.addAction(QIcon(I('config.png')), _('Preferences'), self.do_config)
         cm('welcome wizard', _('Run Welcome &wizard'),
                 icon='wizard.png', triggered=self.gui.run_wizard)
-        cm('plugin updater', _('Get plugins to enhance calibre'),
-                icon='plugins/plugin_updater.png', triggered=self.get_plugins)
         if not DEBUG:
             pm.addSeparator()

ACtually I have no idea what it is undoing, because in my preference
dialog I see and can update plugins, and grepping for get_plugins there
are indeed several places where it is used.


So bottomline, yes, Debian users *can* and *do* use plugins.

> value in sticking with python2 for as long as possible, lest you receive

Yes, that is what I tried over the last half year to keep Calibre at Py2
despite the cleanup action happening in Debian.

> whim. And so I exercised my whim and uploaded a python3 build of
> calibre, so that my users can choose whether to install it for python2
> or python3. I'll most likely leave it that way until calibre releases
> python3 support from beta.

Well, this is more or less what I did, too: The version in
unstable/testing was Py2, and in experimental I uploaded a Py3 version
so those who wanted to get rid of Py2 could use it already.
Didn't get any feedback at all, though.

So yes, I am with Eli in most points (besides the plugin installer ;-),
it would be better to keep Calibre at Py2 for as long as possible, but
if the Debian algorithms go for autoremoval, I have no other chance than
switching to the Py3 version build from the released sources.

It would be nice if Kovid could provide tarballs for the 4.99.N series
of pre-releases, though.

All the best

Norbert

--
PREINING Norbert                               http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. + IFMGA ProGuide + TU Wien + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Dev
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Message #253 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@archlinux.org>

To: 936270@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936270: Any update? We'll remove python-routes soon

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2019 19:45:27 -0500

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

On 12/25/19 6:59 PM, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Hi Eli,
> 
> On Wed, 25 Dec 2019, Eli Schwartz wrote:
>> Are we discussing calibre itself, here, or the plugins? It's been
>> previously agreed that calibre itself is mostly ready.
> 
> Indeed, unfortunately all the fixes in the py3 branch are not merged
> into a released tarball, and I am not eager to try to create orig
> tarballs myself from the git repo (I looked into it, but it seems a lot
> of stuff is needed in addition).

There's a totally unstable source tarball at
https://download.calibre-ebook.com/betas/, if you download a copy of it
for when it gets inevitably deleted and replaced by a new beta.

There's no PGP signatures for those files, though.

The release tarballs can be created in a simple enough fashion, the same
way I generate my daily builds from git:
https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=calibre-git

Take a look at the source files I list there and the sequence of
commands I run in the build() shell function. I have tried to comment
anything I think might not be obvious in purpose.

One source of awkwardness is that the calibre-translations repo is not
versioned, so you either use whatever git master is at the time of
building, or else you use an archive created whenever you froze the sources.

>> That being said, given Debian deletes the plugin installer from the
>> menu, I'm not sure why Debian cares if plugins work.
> 
> Huuu???? Maybe you are using something else, but **my** calibre has it:
> Preferences -> Plugins ... I can (and do!) install plugins, both from
> files as well as from the directory. And do updates.

"Preferences" has a dropdown action, which I suspect is the main way
people find the feature.

Partially removing the feature but still leaving it in there seems like
a very inaccurate way to address the (invalid) bug #640026, but I digress...

> You probably mean that piece of patch:
> --- calibre-debian.git.orig/src/calibre/gui2/actions/preferences.py
> +++ calibre-debian.git/src/calibre/gui2/actions/preferences.py
> @@ -30,8 +30,6 @@ class PreferencesAction(InterfaceAction)
>              pm.addAction(QIcon(I('config.png')), _('Preferences'), self.do_config)
>          cm('welcome wizard', _('Run Welcome &wizard'),
>                  icon='wizard.png', triggered=self.gui.run_wizard)
> -        cm('plugin updater', _('Get plugins to enhance calibre'),
> -                icon='plugins/plugin_updater.png', triggered=self.get_plugins)
>          if not DEBUG:
>              pm.addSeparator()
> 
> ACtually I have no idea what it is undoing, because in my preference
> dialog I see and can update plugins, and grepping for get_plugins there
> are indeed several places where it is used.

I know *what* it's undoing, but I don't know *why*.

"What" it is doing, is removing the most visible method for downloading
plugins, thereby hiding the feature but leaving it available if you're
persistent enough.

If I had to take a wild guess, I'd think the idea is to discourage
people from using it without actually removing it...

> So bottomline, yes, Debian users *can* and *do* use plugins.

... meaning this is a deprioritized use case.

-- 
Eli Schwartz
Arch Linux Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

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

Message #258 received at 936270@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info>

To: Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@archlinux.org>, 936270@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#936270: Any update? We'll remove python-routes soon

Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 10:02:44 +0900

Hi Eli,

On Wed, 25 Dec 2019, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> https://download.calibre-ebook.com/betas/, if you download a copy of it

Ah, thanks, that is fine. *IF* we have to switch to Py3 version in
Debian, I think it is better to use these betas instead of the released
versions, at least what I see from the git commits on the py3 branch.

> https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=calibre-git

Cool, thanks. I don't create daily or git checkout builds, but that
helps in case I need to build from git once.
I looked through the code and it is very understandable. I realized that
doing the bootstrap started to pull from here and there, and now I see
how you worked around it ;-)

> One source of awkwardness is that the calibre-translations repo is not
> versioned, so you either use whatever git master is at the time of

Well, so it be. We cannot guarantee translations to be updated - not
even for released versions of many programs, the translations are
updated in some point releases.

> "Preferences" has a dropdown action, which I suspect is the main way
> people find the feature.
> 
> Partially removing the feature but still leaving it in there seems like
> a very inaccurate way to address the (invalid) bug #640026, but I digress...

Agreed, I will simple *reenable* the dropdown action since the original
complaint in the bug report has not valid (no access to mobileread,
etc).

Thanks for remind me of that!

> If I had to take a wild guess, I'd think the idea is to discourage
> people from using it without actually removing it...

As said, will be undone in the next version.

Best

Norbert

--
PREINING Norbert                               http://www.preining.info
Accelia Inc. + IFMGA ProGuide + TU Wien + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Dev
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13

Message #263 received at 936270-close@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info>

To: 936270-close@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bug#936270: fixed in calibre 4.99.3+dfsg-2

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 14:42:39 +0000

Source: calibre
Source-Version: 4.99.3+dfsg-2

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
calibre, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive.

A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 936270@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info> (supplier of updated calibre package)

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


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 15:56:35 +0900
Source: calibre
Architecture: source
Version: 4.99.3+dfsg-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: medium
Maintainer: Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info>
Changed-By: Norbert Preining <norbert@preining.info>
Closes: 936270
Changes:
 calibre (4.99.3+dfsg-2) unstable; urgency=medium
 .
   [ Norbert Preining ]
   * Python3 based Calibre (Closes: #936270)
   * get-orig-source support for beta releases
   * update NEWS and TODO for Py3 version, remove PYTHON3-STATUS
   * d/watch: include comments on old version watch line and v5 switch
   * switch to uscan for orig creation
 .
   [ YOKOTA Hiroshi ]
   * Use uscan(1) to re-package source files.
     uscan(1) downloads and repacks upstream file when upstream version is
     newer than local version that describes in "debian/changelog".
     Use "gbp import-orig --uscan" to import upstream code.
   * Add new "gbp import-orig" usage as comment.
   * Add "filenamemangle" to specify local file name
   * Verify upstream source code by upstream OpenPGP signature
   * Use relaxed syntax for readability
     "version=4" allows relaxed watch file syntax
Checksums-Sha1:
 cb99790f444ea15439f3faa605b6db69f02ceac0 2806 calibre_4.99.3+dfsg-2.dsc
 71cce3b70f40c7bada1ea5a6f51f6e35a3feaf12 22784 calibre_4.99.3+dfsg-2.debian.tar.xz
 fd9a0d40ff3a6e0fb6b9c07762b7d095a00770f0 19483 calibre_4.99.3+dfsg-2_source.buildinfo
Checksums-Sha256:
 1f2e01c6e1544f65e1e06cb437800fe95967b2f5997a88ca7b5a989d54221d96 2806 calibre_4.99.3+dfsg-2.dsc
 26ff6e4cefe69707dd56cf18f3263fa24eeeea0aef340b6df42313d5208dc1ee 22784 calibre_4.99.3+dfsg-2.debian.tar.xz
 3415ddb45b57c7b58017a2693331ad24a21bdd5cd1c85e53203b8564b8b766de 19483 calibre_4.99.3+dfsg-2_source.buildinfo
Files:
 45a1a61838f0bbaf288056555f723f7c 2806 text optional calibre_4.99.3+dfsg-2.dsc
 a375617b10e74a265e7798749050d9ed 22784 text optional calibre_4.99.3+dfsg-2.debian.tar.xz
 9ae4066743847b81ee02ac23a5409e8d 19483 text optional calibre_4.99.3+dfsg-2_source.buildinfo

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEE68ws0vrA2voQX53I2A4JsIcUAGYFAl4gZrQACgkQ2A4JsIcU
AGZEgQf+IW8c46jfc/AKI+beazlzFTr+KyYaWsDpVIjC7AT2AVkDfZxGYHS1bbKm
bZz0HMpb6YlB++YmTzetWJZHjWl3RwFIoMCNYC9bj5z732af9vL0kiTYikIEEyE4
0EpO1D91UzIYtpVgERr8Z9JdEVBBMepSEGBuKK533RiPI5dhEBQwSwWbSYAURRPM
fvyyHlATOXrRocewYdK4C+/mi6kuf2taL7KNhxJQ8vhShA48ipq0OiUNndP0ECpd
CJom1Ztxsca1SKkNApdOXsqHtXR5yhFupmZlKw7zwjAdDtru84iz50USX2r+qNng
7cJ9OXvhu0ogg77MlmD/y3/BvNSK9Q==
=Bhvb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.