Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1737644 - libldb, libtalloc, libtevent, libtdb: Remove Python 2 subpackages from Fedora 31+
Summary: libldb, libtalloc, libtevent, libtdb: Remove Python 2 subpackages from Fedora...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: libldb
Version: 31
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jakub Hrozek
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: PY2REMOVAL F31_PY2REMOVAL
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2019-08-05 23:30 UTC by Miro Hrončok
Modified: 2019-08-26 17:19 UTC (History)
13 users (show)

Fixed In Version: libldb-2.0.5-1.fc31, libldb-2.0.5-1.fc32,libtdb-1.4.2-1.fc31,libtdb-1.4.2-1.fc32,libtevent-0.10.0-1.fc32,libtevent-0.10.0-1.fc31,libtalloc-2.2.0-1.fc32,libtalloc-2.2.0-1.fc31
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-08-26 12:33:48 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Miro Hrončok 2019-08-05 23:30:46 UTC 
In line with the Mass Python 2 Package Removal [0], the following (sub)packages of libldb were marked for removal:

 * python2-ldb

According to our query, those (sub)packages only provide a Python 2 importable module. If this is not true, please tell us why, so we can fix our query.

Please remove them from your package in Rawhide (Fedora 31).

Please don't do this for Fedora 30, removing packages from a released Fedora branch is forbidden.

As said in the change document, if there is no objection in a week, we will remove the package(s) as soon as we get to it. This change might not match your packaging style, so we'd prefer if you did the change. If you need more time, please let us know here.

If you do the change yourself, it would help us a lot by reducing the amount of packages we need to mass change.

We hope this doesn't come to you as a surprise. If you want to know our motivation for this, please read the change document [0].

[0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F31_Mass_Python_2_Package_Removal
Comment 1 Miro Hrončok 2019-08-05 23:31:25 UTC 
python2-ldb is in fact needed by python2-ldb-devel, but that one is not needed by anything. Please drop both.
Comment 2 Lukas Slebodnik 2019-08-06 07:26:57 UTC 
python2-ldb* was needed by samba and samba removed python2 packages in f30.
Do you think we can remove python2 packages there as well ?

BTW I will use this BZ also for removing python2 packages from libtalloc, libtevent, libtdb
but if you want feel free to create separate bugs.
Comment 3 Miro Hrončok 2019-08-06 08:45:32 UTC 
(In reply to Lukas Slebodnik from comment #2)
> python2-ldb* was needed by samba and samba removed python2 packages in f30.
> Do you think we can remove python2 packages there as well ?

Technically, this is not possible. The packages will stay in the "fedora" repo forever, they'd just be removed from "updates" repo.

You are technically able to obsolete them from the main pakcage to remove them from the installed systems, but that's removing possibly user-dependent packages from a stable release -> a big API change, and that would be against the update policy.

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_multiple_python_runtimes

"Mirroring the policy for regular packages, the Python-version-specific subpackages of your package MUST NOT be removed in a release branch of Fedora."


> BTW I will use this BZ also for removing python2 packages from libtalloc,
> libtevent, libtdb
> but if you want feel free to create separate bugs.

Sure, I've renamed the bug accordingly.

Thank You.
Comment 4 Lukas Slebodnik 2019-08-06 08:49:35 UTC 
OK will remove them just in f31+ later this week.
Comment 5 Lukas Slebodnik 2019-08-12 16:26:54 UTC 
There should be release of new libraries for samba 4.11.0rc2 and they are already python3 only.

Miro, are you fine with fixing this BZ a little bit later or would you prefer to
remove python2 packages sooner?
Comment 6 Miro Hrončok 2019-08-12 17:14:08 UTC 
I can wait.
Comment 7 Ben Cotton 2019-08-13 16:47:59 UTC 
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 31 development cycle.
Changing version to '31'.
Comment 8 Miro Hrončok 2019-08-22 13:48:16 UTC 
(In reply to Lukas Slebodnik from comment #5)
> Miro, are you fine with fixing this BZ a little bit later or would you
> prefer to
> remove python2 packages sooner?

To clarify, I'd like to see this fixed in Fedora 31 before the beta freeze. That is one week from now. Is that reasonable?
Comment 9 Lukas Slebodnik 2019-08-22 13:56:44 UTC 
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #8)
> (In reply to Lukas Slebodnik from comment #5)
> > Miro, are you fine with fixing this BZ a little bit later or would you
> > prefer to
> > remove python2 packages sooner?
> 
> To clarify, I'd like to see this fixed in Fedora 31 before the beta freeze.
> That is one week from now. Is that reasonable?

Yep, should be possible.
I had a discussion with samba developers (because there was a soname bump in  python-ldb
samba-4.11.0rc2 should be released soon. But we might use 4.11.0rc1 in will not happen in a week.
Comment 10 Miro Hrončok 2019-08-26 12:52:18 UTC 
Thanks.
Comment 11 Lukas Slebodnik 2019-08-26 17:09:17 UTC 
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #10)
> Thanks.

BTW I added obsoletes to libraries which were dependencies of python-2 packages.
Do you plan to add them also to fedora-obsoletes-packages ?
Comment 12 Miro Hrončok 2019-08-26 17:15:49 UTC 
(In reply to Lukas Slebodnik from comment #11)
> BTW I added obsoletes to libraries which were dependencies of python-2
> packages.

I've seen that.

> Do you plan to add them also to fedora-obsoletes-packages ?

I do not, that would be redundant. Would you prefer to have them there instead?
Comment 13 Lukas Slebodnik 2019-08-26 17:19:16 UTC 
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #12)
> (In reply to Lukas Slebodnik from comment #11)
> > BTW I added obsoletes to libraries which were dependencies of python-2
> > packages.
> 
> I've seen that.
> 
> > Do you plan to add them also to fedora-obsoletes-packages ?
> 
> I do not, that would be redundant. Would you prefer to have them there
> instead?

I fine with current. I just want to double check :-)
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.