On 2/28/21 12:10 PM, Takashi Kajinami wrote:
On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 3:32 AM Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org <mailto:zigo@debian.org>> wrote:
Hi,
On 2/27/21 3:52 PM, Takashi Kajinami wrote: > I have posted a comment on the said patch but I prefer using pyvers in > that specific patch because; > - The change seems to be a backport candidate and using pyvers helps us > backport the change > to older branches like Train which still supports python 2 IIRC.
Even Rocky is already using python3 in Debian/Ubuntu. The last distro using the Python 2 version would be Stretch (which is long EOLed) and Bionic (at this time, people should be moving to Focal, no ?, which IMO are not targets for backports.
Therefore, for this specific patch, even if you want to do a backport, it doesn't make sense.
Are you planning to do such a backport for the RPM world?
We still have queens open for puppet-openstack modules. IIRC rdo rocky is based on CentOS7 and Python2. Also, I don't really like to see inconsistent implementation caused by backport knowing that we don't support python3 in these branches. Anyway we can consider that when we actually backport the change.
I'm a bit surprised that you still care about such an old release as Queens. Is this the release shipped with CentOS 7? In any ways, thanks for letting me know, I have to admit I don't know much about the RPM side of things. In such case, I'm ok to keep the ${pyvers} variable for the CentOS case for a bit longer then, but can we agree when we stop using it? Also IMO, forcing it for Debian/Ubuntu doesn't make sense anymore. Thanks everyone for participating in this thread, Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)