X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Filter:	OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 8E0663938C3E
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com;
	s=default; t=1592803215;
	bh=z50zhBFkQLtXRQzOm12XChORKJlY0+EengIwXPP+c1E=;
	h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:
	List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:
	From;
	b=Tz2ILxm9LTl+EITVgVD/LAkTqMckhreBhAc7HA4Eb3J3v9JsA7+Z0RuGY2IJuTBs4
	SOF9s8Qf2FBHe1QrwCx4KU9VXIBXRy1y2jc8FuiK5gk24GRfB2zJN8dexzWhg6xAVe
	K4ELOH7H+RLKI/ns4h5hWc2StUjQ1IxKzKDsQ1OQ=
X-Original-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
DMARC-Filter:	OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 7671C3840C3D
X-Google-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
	h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language
	:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=x160qNzYja60zhyIwimkN/NO/r7s9ejSBYAcAOnAg+A=;
	b=KMqCBujZzmbYDE8yYvlhr2g1Oh4vHoYWfMlhhgBP2NrEl3IPnxh8UJ38PRdBIixlBF
	W+t1PfZJUuk7egcWVdBMrUmg/nCQrj/OuoQhMt0YsYAoxRhTTDNBzBUYfi1LM+Q8WPlo
	D9wpUs29hLBCIgvdEjDDjQVAuPgRVV6n7g0C+GyRQaffnWNljPTBdcSn8t02Saj3N8z7
	5CVYTFM2xdO6pZ07+yVC9aQYCrSCkWrQiEgp+Fia5IQ06UcEm2KvxtMpqfVxSqdEL0eb
	iewFBDHhOfos5ytNzXWwl7AO1lXPE789PUFOu6TSJ+pgslYwKeRSxSXD2avXI7lwMv6h
	j/Aw==
X-Gm-Message-State:	AOAM531gRQ7br/6QBNuHABSk31GSSJi7X5hr9xcJ2NIHGeD5rTssp0dY
	E8rzAIIB0hyOUTOjndkUmyxgURn7
X-Google-Smtp-Source:	ABdhPJx59xP6lYvOw2Fjh9atis6MiJ2uZcwKIIHuAe5un+3BtOcyCVOuKP+BO0xVhJFd3pIoPm3q6g==
X-Received:	by 2002:a05:6402:1153:: with SMTP id
	g19mr14828322edw.127.1592803212323;
	Sun, 21 Jun 2020 22:20:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:	Re: Apparent bug in either (1) Cygwin default Package-list or (2)
	Package "bzr" dependency-list
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<CAGUd5DUvzsGYvfj-5eT5D=_WWxQ2_gvemMOLND2_1Ht1M9jtoA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<45a8baf1-f636-7c03-ec1f-7c72ee73c56d AT SystematicSw DOT ab DOT ca>
	<f4e59e7b-3a69-1f56-5276-f7036a5065c6 AT dronecode DOT org DOT uk>
	<d25f12af-f495-fa79-c29f-aa8f0cb179d7 AT SystematicSw DOT ab DOT ca>
	<CAGUd5DWJ-NEZ-9Z-2tzsAptNKnwxJcJ5wTtHk2a2h-45yZTOxA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<MN2PR17MB39991ED3424DF98A4703CBBFB8970 AT MN2PR17MB3999 DOT namprd17 DOT prod DOT outlook DOT com>
Message-ID:	<b9b65cfe-282d-47ba-3133-9b58717c73cc@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 22 Jun 2020 07:20:10 +0200
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
	Thunderbird/68.9.0
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<MN2PR17MB39991ED3424DF98A4703CBBFB8970@MN2PR17MB3999.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
X-Spam-Status:	No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM,
	RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,
	TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version:	SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
	server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Mailman-Version:	2.1.29
List-Id:	General Cygwin discussions and problem reports <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe:	<http://cygwin.com/mailman/options/cygwin>,
	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive:	<https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe:	<http://cygwin.com/mailman/listinfo/cygwin>,
	<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=subscribe>
From:	Marco Atzeri via Cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-To:	Marco Atzeri <marco DOT atzeri AT gmail DOT com>
Errors-To:	cygwin-bounces AT cygwin DOT com
Sender:	"Cygwin" <cygwin-bounces AT cygwin DOT com>

On 22.06.2020 04:21, Allen Hewes via Cygwin wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Cygwin <cygwin-bounces AT cygwin DOT com> On Behalf Of My Name via
>> Cygwin
>> Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2020 2:04 PM
>> To: Brian DOT Inglis AT systematicsw DOT ab DOT ca
>> Cc: The Cygwin Mailing List <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
>> Subject: Re: Apparent bug in either (1) Cygwin default Package-list or (2)
>> Package "bzr" dependency-list
>>
>> This is mostly over my head, so I'm sorry if my comment here is irrelevant,
>> but I'll point out in case anyone here doesn't know, Python 3 doesn't make
>> Python 2 obsolete. They are somewhat incompatible. Python 2 source
>> doesn't always run in Python 3 without extensive modification. If there's any
>> message you all would like me to deliver to the Bazaar (bzr) forum, I will; but
>> I'm not a Bazaar developer either, just a user.
>>
> 
> Yep, I am in agreement here. I don't understand why Python 2 gets attention from Cygwin maintainers. I have a found a few packages that are "linked" (e.g. they have dependencies on either the Python27 or Python2/Python meta-package), which would explain this to some degree. Usually, it's just a rebuild (e.g. a re-configure) of the depending-ee...
> 
> I can't get rid of three Python 2.7 packages: python27, python27-pip, python27-setuptools. I switched over to using alternatives (sometime ago) so that I can "stop" the craziness of the meta-package "python". I don't want Python 2 as my 'python'.
> 
> The need to have two Pythons installed at the same time seems to be over. Shouldn't this remove the need to have meta-packages?
> 
> Cygiwn isn't alone is keeping Python 2 alive.
> 
> /allen
> 

by default "python" is "python2" so anything calling python still 
requires python2, see:

https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0394/

and there are a lot of packages in cygwin doing it.

Packaging requires time and currently on python we are short of it.

I am moving to package all python-subpackages for 3.8 and
after we can look to move some packages from python2 (2.7)
to python 3 (target 3.8)

Regards
MArco


--
Problem reports:      https://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                  https://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:        https://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:     https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -