Bug#956260: bkchem: should this package be removed?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#956260: bkchem: should this package be removed?

Sandro Tosi-6
Package: bkchem
Severity: serious
Tags: bullseye, sid

Hello,
i think this pacakge should be removed from debian:


* python2-only
* dead upstream (last release in 2010)
* relatively low pop-con
* keeps in the archive at least 1 package that could be removed if we remove
  bkchem

if I dont receive within week a good reason to keep this pacakge in the archive,
i'll file for its removal.

Regards,
Sandro

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 10.0
  APT prefers unstable-debug
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable-debug'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental-debug'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 4.19.0-5-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores)
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_PROPRIETARY_MODULE, TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE= (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Versions of packages bkchem depends on:
ii  python      2.7.16-1
ii  python-pil  6.1.0-1
pn  python-pmw  <none>

bkchem recommends no packages.

Versions of packages bkchem suggests:
ii  python-cairo  1.16.2-1+b1

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#956260: [Debichem-devel] Bug#956260: bkchem: should this package be removed?

Tone Kokalj
On 2020-04-09 06:14, Sandro Tosi wrote:

> Package: bkchem
> Severity: serious
> Tags: bullseye, sid
>
> Hello,
> i think this pacakge should be removed from debian:
>
>
> * python2-only
> * dead upstream (last release in 2010)
> * relatively low pop-con
> * keeps in the archive at least 1 package that could be removed if we
> remove
>   bkchem
>
> if I dont receive within week a good reason to keep this pacakge in the
> archive,
> i'll file for its removal.

To my opinion, bkchem is the best simple program for drawing chemical
skeletal formulae.
As a chemist I use it all the time. It would really be a pity if it
disappears from Debian.

Best regards,
Tone
--
Jožef Stefan Institute, Jamova 39, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
(tel: +386-1-477-3523 // fax: +386-1-251-9385)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#956260: Bug#956260: bkchem: should this package be removed?

Daniel Leidert-2
Am Donnerstag, den 09.04.2020, 08:48 +0200 schrieb Tone Kokalj:
> On 2020-04-09 06:14, Sandro Tosi wrote:

[..]

> > i think this pacakge should be removed from debian:
> >
> >
> > * python2-only
> > * dead upstream (last release in 2010)
> > * relatively low pop-con
> > * keeps in the archive at least 1 package that could be removed if we
> > remove
> >   bkchem
> >
> > if I dont receive within week a good reason to keep this pacakge in the
> > archive,
> > i'll file for its removal.
>
> To my opinion, bkchem is the best simple program for drawing chemical
> skeletal formulae.
> As a chemist I use it all the time. It would really be a pity if it
> disappears from Debian.
It seems there was some attempt to port it:
https://python-forum.io/Thread-Error-during-2to3-conversion

I can run this tool locally (2to3 package). It seems it throws some errors on
some files and I'm currently checking if these errors can be fixed by using
iconv. However the changes are huge! So if someone else with Python knowledge
wants to port it, pleaes feel free to do so.

I checked the other distros. But none has any python3 patch.

Regards, Daniel

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#956260: [Debichem-devel] Bug#956260: bkchem: should this package be removed?

Sandro Tosi-6
In reply to this post by Tone Kokalj
> To my opinion, bkchem is the best simple program for drawing chemical
> skeletal formulae.
> As a chemist I use it all the time. It would really be a pity if it
> disappears from Debian.

that's good to know and thanks for sharing this.

The situation is that every major Linux distributions are removing
support for Python2, as it entered its end-of-life status on Jan 1st,
2020. So at some point either someone steps in and port bkchem (and
all the othre required packages) to python3 or it will have to be
removed from Debian (at least from its stable release).

If you are knowledgeable to do the migration, or know someone that is
willing to lend a hand, now it's the time to act.

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#956260: Bug#956260: bkchem: should this package be removed?

Moritz Mühlenhoff-2
In reply to this post by Daniel Leidert-2
On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 01:38:13PM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote:

> Am Donnerstag, den 09.04.2020, 08:48 +0200 schrieb Tone Kokalj:
> > On 2020-04-09 06:14, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>
> [..]
> > > i think this pacakge should be removed from debian:
> > >
> > >
> > > * python2-only
> > > * dead upstream (last release in 2010)
> > > * relatively low pop-con
> > > * keeps in the archive at least 1 package that could be removed if we
> > > remove
> > >   bkchem
> > >
> > > if I dont receive within week a good reason to keep this pacakge in the
> > > archive,
> > > i'll file for its removal.
> >
> > To my opinion, bkchem is the best simple program for drawing chemical
> > skeletal formulae.
> > As a chemist I use it all the time. It would really be a pity if it
> > disappears from Debian.
>
> It seems there was some attempt to port it:
> https://python-forum.io/Thread-Error-during-2to3-conversion
>
> I can run this tool locally (2to3 package). It seems it throws some errors on
> some files and I'm currently checking if these errors can be fixed by using
> iconv. However the changes are huge! So if someone else with Python knowledge
> wants to port it, pleaes feel free to do so.
>
> I checked the other distros. But none has any python3 patch.

Let's go ahead with removal now? This is blocking progress on lower level
dependencies. If no Py3 arises until the bullseye release, it would also
be an option to upload a package to Flathub.

Cheers,
        Moritz

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#956260: [Debichem-devel] Bug#956260: Bug#956260: bkchem: should this package be removed?

Michael Banck
Hi,

On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 11:22:32AM +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> Let's go ahead with removal now? This is blocking progress on lower level
> dependencies.

What exactly is it blocking?


Michael

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#956260: [Debichem-devel] Bug#956260: Bug#956260: bkchem: should this package be removed?

Moritz Mühlenhoff-2
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:51:47AM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 11:22:32AM +0200, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote:
> > Let's go ahead with removal now? This is blocking progress on lower level
> > dependencies.
>
> What exactly is it blocking?

It blocks reverse deps from removing their Python 2 packages (or if
Py2-specific the package at large), which in turn block the removal
of other packages.

In the case of bkchem python-pil and python-pmw, which in turn block
the removal of python-tk.

Cheers,
        Moritz

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#956260: bkchem: should this package be removed?

Stuart Prescott-11
> > What exactly is it blocking?
>
> It blocks reverse deps from removing their Python 2 packages (or if
> Py2-specific the package at large), which in turn block the removal
> of other packages.
>
> In the case of bkchem python-pil and python-pmw, which in turn block
> the removal of python-tk.

As bkchem is no longer in testing and the Python 2 version of bkchem can
*never* migrate back to testing, these rdeps can now drop their Python 2
packages without making testing more buggy.

* python-pil is already only cruft and is not in testing.

* python-pmw can also be removed from testing now as it has no rdeps in
testing and will be autoremoved soon; it may as well be removed from the
archive entirely, unless someone wants to upgrade it to the Python 3 version
just for the fun of it.

(This has been the standard practice throughout the process of removing Python
2 and is the reason why the bugs are slowly elevated in severity; ideally, we
never get as far as breaking packages that are in unstable but that is not a
hard requirement in *any* transition, much less big and messy one like this.)

The Python 2 version of bkchem will not be released with bullseye, so we may
as well make it easier for those trying to do other things for the bullseye
release.

*If* a Python 3 version of bkchem appears we can get it into bullseye. I doubt
that is ever going to appear, however, as that effort is tangled with several
other changes to modules that bkchem currently ships embedded copies of; a
py3-bkchem therefore needs to catch up with changes to other modules as well
as port to Python 3. All this without a test suite to help catch the
inevitable porting problems.

I say this as a bkchem user who doesn't have a good Plan B :(

regards
Stuart


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