Bonfire of the Packages

Bonfire of the Packages

[Jon Turney]

Generally, we have a large number of old, unmaintained packages.

The policy [1] has always been "Packages without an active maintainer 
may be pulled from the distribution.", but not actively enforced (in 
fact prior to 2022, this used to say "are pulled", but I moderated the 
statement, just to reflect reality).

I guess what's needed is an automated process which removes unmaintained 
packages, after some period of time in that state.

I'm somewhat ambivalent about doing that, as they are probably of some 
use, but on the hand I don't think our users are best served providing 
very old packages with unknown numbers of bugs, security problems, etc., 
or which are unsupported upstream.

So, to start with, please give your nominations for the chopping block 
here, or volunteer to rescue them via an ITA.

It would be nice to do this in an evidence-based, data-driven manner, 
prioritising keeping packages that people actually use, but that 
involves building something to collect that data, which I am not 
optimistic about being forthcoming.


Here's my personal list:

* python

After python27 (the last python2 version, which has been sun-setted 
since 2020), both python36 and python37 should be removed (after 
rebuilding any python-* package which don't currently provide 3.8, 3.9 
versions)

* gcc-tools-epoch{1,2}-{autoconf,automake}

These were only relevant to people making patches for versions of gcc 
which are now historical.

* wxWidgets 2.8?

* vte (soverion 9) (as opposed to soversions 2.90 and 2.91)

* llvm3.5 (only depended on by old clamv versions)

* glade2/glade3 should be obsoleted by glade?

* php

We're currently shipping 7.3, which was out of support Dec 2021.

* X11 DEs

There's a large number of X11 Desktop Environments (list at [2]).

I think we should remove the GNOME and KDE DEs, as they are heavyweight 
and do not perform very well under Cygwin.  Ideally the LXDE/MATE/Xfce 
DEs would get a refresh, but it seems unlikely...

(note this means the desktops, not the applications, although our KDE
and GNOME application stacks also need work to be brought up to date)

There's also some GNOME2 and KDE4 era stuff, which is probably all 
obsolete and can be removed.


[1] https://cygwin.com/packaging-contributors-guide.html#submitting
[2] https://x.cygwin.com/docs/ug/using.html#using-starting-session

Re: Bonfire of the Packages

[gs-cygwin.com]

On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 01:32:59PM +0100, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> 
> Generally, we have a large number of old, unmaintained packages.
> 
> The policy [1] has always been "Packages without an active maintainer may be
> pulled from the distribution.", but not actively enforced (in fact prior to
> 2022, this used to say "are pulled", but I moderated the statement, just to
> reflect reality).
> 
> I guess what's needed is an automated process which removes unmaintained
> packages, after some period of time in that state.
> 
> I'm somewhat ambivalent about doing that, as they are probably of some use,
> but on the hand I don't think our users are best served providing very old
> packages with unknown numbers of bugs, security problems, etc., or which are
> unsupported upstream.

Were the first steps to be performed by an automated process, I would
propose that the automated process mark and move packages
'pending delete' to a new category "abandoned", which is not installed
by default, but selectable in the cygwin setup.exe.  Alternatively,
'promote' the abandoned packages to "testing".  After a period of time
in "abandoned" or "testing", the packages could be removed to a holding
area, but not yet deleted, since this is the time that some people might
start to notice.  It would be nice to be able to restore packages
relatively quickly during this period.  Finally, after another period of
time passes, delete the package.

Cheers, Glenn

Re: Bonfire of the Packages

[Thomas Wolff]

Am 24.09.2023 um 20:20 schrieb gstrauss via Cygwin-apps:
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 01:32:59PM +0100, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>> Generally, we have a large number of old, unmaintained packages.
>>
>> The policy [1] has always been "Packages without an active maintainer may be
>> pulled from the distribution.", but not actively enforced (in fact prior to
>> 2022, this used to say "are pulled", but I moderated the statement, just to
>> reflect reality).
>>
>> I guess what's needed is an automated process which removes unmaintained
>> packages, after some period of time in that state.
>>
>> I'm somewhat ambivalent about doing that, as they are probably of some use,
>> but on the hand I don't think our users are best served providing very old
>> packages with unknown numbers of bugs, security problems, etc., or which are
>> unsupported upstream.
> Were the first steps to be performed by an automated process, I would
> propose that the automated process mark and move packages
> 'pending delete' to a new category "abandoned", which is not installed
> by default, but selectable in the cygwin setup.exe.  Alternatively,
> 'promote' the abandoned packages to "testing".  After a period of time
> in "abandoned" or "testing", the packages could be removed to a holding
> area, but not yet deleted, since this is the time that some people might
> start to notice.  It would be nice to be able to restore packages
> relatively quickly during this period.  Finally, after another period of
> time passes, delete the package.
>
> Cheers, Glenn
I have two packages that were not updated for 7 years for a while, for 
different reasons, but are still maintained.
What criteria would you have in mind? I don't think this is a reasonable 
approach.
Thomas

Python 3.5 and 3.6 removal (was Re: Bonfire of the Packages)

[Jon Turney]

On 24/09/2023 13:32, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> 
> Generally, we have a large number of old, unmaintained packages.
> 
> The policy [1] has always been "Packages without an active maintainer 
> may be pulled from the distribution.", but not actively enforced (in 
> fact prior to 2022, this used to say "are pulled", but I moderated the 
> statement, just to reflect reality).

I guess this needs to also mention upstream EOL status as a criteria.

[...]
> 
> Here's my personal list:
> 
> * python
> 
> After python27 (the last python2 version, which has been sun-setted 
> since 2020), both python36 and python37 should be removed (after 
> rebuilding any python-* package which don't currently provide 3.8, 3.9 
> versions)
  Marco,

I assume you are OK with the removal of python 3.5 (EOL Sept 2020) and 
3.6 (EOL Dec 2021)?

(I'm still dealing with cleaning up the final pieces of python27 
detritus, but these should hopefully be much smaller tasks)

Re: Python 3.5 and 3.6 removal (was Re: Bonfire of the Packages)

[Marco Atzeri]

On 24/03/2024 15:07, Jon Turney wrote:
> On 24/09/2023 13:32, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>>

> 
> I assume you are OK with the removal of python 3.5 (EOL Sept 2020) and 
> 3.6 (EOL Dec 2021)?
> 
> (I'm still dealing with cleaning up the final pieces of python27 
> detritus, but these should hopefully be much smaller tasks)
> 

nothing should depend from 3.5
not sure for 3.6

Re: Python 3.5 and 3.6 removal (was Re: Bonfire of the Packages)

[Jon Turney]

On 24/03/2024 17:31, Marco Atzeri via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> On 24/03/2024 15:07, Jon Turney wrote:
>> On 24/09/2023 13:32, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>>
>> I assume you are OK with the removal of python 3.5 (EOL Sept 2020) and 
>> 3.6 (EOL Dec 2021)?
>>
>> (I'm still dealing with cleaning up the final pieces of python27 
>> detritus, but these should hopefully be much smaller tasks)
>>
> 
> nothing should depend from 3.5
> not sure for 3.6

I've automated some of the analysis I was doing for python2 packages and 
the results are now available at [1].

So yeah, it looks like nothing uses 3.5.

There are just a couple of packages using 3.6, I guess I'll ping the 
maintainers about those.

[1] https://cygwin.com/packages/reports/python_rebuilds.html

Re: Python 3.5 and 3.6 removal (was Re: Bonfire of the Packages)

[Brian Inglis]

On 2024-03-24 11:46, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> On 24/03/2024 17:31, Marco Atzeri via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>> On 24/03/2024 15:07, Jon Turney wrote:
>>> On 24/09/2023 13:32, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>>>
>>> I assume you are OK with the removal of python 3.5 (EOL Sept 2020) and 3.6 
>>> (EOL Dec 2021)?
>>>
>>> (I'm still dealing with cleaning up the final pieces of python27 detritus, 
>>> but these should hopefully be much smaller tasks)
>>>
>>
>> nothing should depend from 3.5
>> not sure for 3.6
> 
> I've automated some of the analysis I was doing for python2 packages and the 
> results are now available at [1].
> 
> So yeah, it looks like nothing uses 3.5.
> 
> There are just a couple of packages using 3.6, I guess I'll ping the maintainers 
> about those.
> 
> [1] https://cygwin.com/packages/reports/python_rebuilds.html

Not sure why my source package nghttp2 shows python install packages, when they 
were dropped after 1.43 IIRC: build deps no longer include python/-devel?

And why does that nghttp2 source package show a dozen archived source versions, 
when its installed packages have only three?

Feel free to purge as appropriate, or tell me what to add to cygport, hints, etc!

-- 
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis              Calgary, Alberta, Canada

La perfection est atteinte                   Perfection is achieved
non pas lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à ajouter  not when there is no more to add
mais lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à retirer     but when there is no more to cut
                                 -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Re: Python 3.5 and 3.6 removal (was Re: Bonfire of the Packages)

[Jon Turney]

On 24/03/2024 18:51, Brian Inglis via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> On 2024-03-24 11:46, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>> On 24/03/2024 17:31, Marco Atzeri via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>>> On 24/03/2024 15:07, Jon Turney wrote:
>>>> On 24/09/2023 13:32, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>>>>
[...]
> 
> Not sure why my source package nghttp2 shows python install packages, 
> when they were dropped after 1.43 IIRC: build deps no longer include 
> python/-devel?

If you haven't taken any specific action to retire the python-3x-nghttp2 
packages, the existing ones will continue to be available indefinitely.

Firstly, it seems there's a question here about what are upstream's 
plans for the users of the python bindings for this library.

Are they supposed to migrate to some alternate bindings maybe available 
from a separate repo? Or are they just out of luck?

> And why does that nghttp2 source package show a dozen archived source 
> versions, when its installed packages have only three?

The simple answer to that is we retain the source package for all 
available install packages.  This seems essential for an open-source 
project.

Now, as to why there are so many installable packages, this is the 
intersection of a couple of unfortunate issues.

1. 'python3-nghttp2' is an "old-style" obsoletion package, where the 
package exists, but is of category _obsolete, and requires the 
replacement package.

These are terrible, because we can't remove the obsolete package because 
that's what records the fact of obsoletion.

I actually have some code for calm to internally convert that to a 
"new-style" obsoletion, where the replacement package itself records the 
obsoletion (i.e. python36-nghttp2 obsoletes: python3-nghttp2), which it 
continues to remember about even after the package which contains that 
obsoleting is expired.

Once that's done, all those "old-style" obsoletion packages lingering in 
our package repository can be removed (along with their corresponding 
source).

But I still need to do some testing before that can be deployed.

(However, all that's probably not what's actually wanted with python 
packages: it's preferable to have python3-foo be a virtual package which 
pulls in python3x-foo, where python3x is the current python, so that 
scripted installs can be written which ask for python3 and python3-foo 
and continue to work while x changes...)

2. We haven't purged old python versions for a long time, so e.g the 
python36 binding packages are still lingering.

As you can see, I'm just now getting around to looking at expiring 
python36, which eventually should lead to python36-nghttp2 being expired 
(insert some observations about how it doesn't have to be me doing these 
things here)...

> Feel free to purge as appropriate, or tell me what to add to cygport, 
> hints, etc!

So, the long list of source versions will hopefully be reduced in the 
fullness of time...

Re: Python 3.5 and 3.6 removal (was Re: Bonfire of the Packages)

[Jon Turney]

On 24/03/2024 17:46, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> On 24/03/2024 17:31, Marco Atzeri via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>> On 24/03/2024 15:07, Jon Turney wrote:
>>> On 24/09/2023 13:32, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>>>
>>> I assume you are OK with the removal of python 3.5 (EOL Sept 2020) 
>>> and 3.6 (EOL Dec 2021)?
>>>
>>> (I'm still dealing with cleaning up the final pieces of python27 
>>> detritus, but these should hopefully be much smaller tasks)
>>>
>> nothing should depend from 3.5
>> not sure for 3.6
> 
> I've automated some of the analysis I was doing for python2 packages and 
> the results are now available at [1].
> 
> So yeah, it looks like nothing uses 3.5.
> 
> There are just a couple of packages using 3.6, I guess I'll ping the 
> maintainers about those.
> 
> [1] https://cygwin.com/packages/reports/python_rebuilds.html

Ake,

Is it possible to update/rebuild libftdi1, which only publishes python 
bindings for the soon-to-be removed python36?

(Or indicate that you are no longer interested in maintaining this 
package, which will probably lead to it's removal).

Thanks.

Re: Python 3.5 and 3.6 removal (was Re: Bonfire of the Packages)

[Jon Turney]

On 24/03/2024 17:46, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> On 24/03/2024 17:31, Marco Atzeri via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>> On 24/03/2024 15:07, Jon Turney wrote:
>>> On 24/09/2023 13:32, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>>>
>>> I assume you are OK with the removal of python 3.5 (EOL Sept 2020) 
>>> and 3.6 (EOL Dec 2021)?
>>>
>>> (I'm still dealing with cleaning up the final pieces of python27 
>>> detritus, but these should hopefully be much smaller tasks)
>>>
>> nothing should depend from 3.5
>> not sure for 3.6
> 
> I've automated some of the analysis I was doing for python2 packages and 
> the results are now available at [1].
> 
> So yeah, it looks like nothing uses 3.5.
> 
> There are just a couple of packages using 3.6, I guess I'll ping the 
> maintainers about those.
> 
> [1] https://cygwin.com/packages/reports/python_rebuilds.html
David,

Is it possible to update/rebuild rdiff-backup, which replies upon the 
soon-to-be removed python36?

(Or indicate that you are no longer interested in maintaining this 
package, which will probably lead to it's removal).

Thanks.

Re: Python 3.5 and 3.6 removal (was Re: Bonfire of the Packages)

[David Rothenberger]

On 3/28/2024 10:50 AM, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> On 24/03/2024 17:46, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>> On 24/03/2024 17:31, Marco Atzeri via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>>> On 24/03/2024 15:07, Jon Turney wrote:
>>>> On 24/09/2023 13:32, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I assume you are OK with the removal of python 3.5 (EOL Sept 2020) 
>>>> and 3.6 (EOL Dec 2021)?
>>>>
>>>> (I'm still dealing with cleaning up the final pieces of python27 
>>>> detritus, but these should hopefully be much smaller tasks)
>>>>
>>> nothing should depend from 3.5
>>> not sure for 3.6
>>
>> I've automated some of the analysis I was doing for python2 packages 
>> and the results are now available at [1].
>>
>> So yeah, it looks like nothing uses 3.5.
>>
>> There are just a couple of packages using 3.6, I guess I'll ping the 
>> maintainers about those.
>>
>> [1] https://cygwin.com/packages/reports/python_rebuilds.html
> David,
> 
> Is it possible to update/rebuild rdiff-backup, which replies upon the 
> soon-to-be removed python36?
> 
> (Or indicate that you are no longer interested in maintaining this 
> package, which will probably lead to it's removal).

Please remove me as the maintainer from that package. I no longer use 
it, and no longer have an environment for building packages for Cygwin.

Thanks,
David

-- 
David Rothenberger  ----  daveroth@acm.org

Katz' Law:
         Men and nations will act rationally when
         all other possibilities have been exhausted.

History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have
exhausted all other alternatives.
                 -- Abba Eban

Re: Python 3.5 and 3.6 removal (was Re: Bonfire of the Packages)

[Jon Turney]

On 29/03/2024 18:32, David Rothenberger via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> On 3/28/2024 10:50 AM, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
[...]
>> David,
>>
>> Is it possible to update/rebuild rdiff-backup, which replies upon the 
>> soon-to-be removed python36?
>>
>> (Or indicate that you are no longer interested in maintaining this 
>> package, which will probably lead to it's removal).
> 
> Please remove me as the maintainer from that package. I no longer use 
> it, and no longer have an environment for building packages for Cygwin.

No problem. Thanks for maintaining it in the past.

Is the same true for your other packages?

$ grep Rothenberger cygwin-pkg-maint | grep -v ORPHANED
cyrus-sasl                                   David Rothenberger
flac                                         David Rothenberger
libao                                        David Rothenberger
libapr1                                      David Rothenberger
libaprutil1                                  David Rothenberger
libkate                                      David Rothenberger
libogg                                       David Rothenberger
librsync                                     David Rothenberger
libtheora                                    David Rothenberger
libvorbis                                    David Rothenberger
rdiff-backup                                 David Rothenberger
speex                                        David Rothenberger
speexdsp                                     David Rothenberger
vorbis-tools                                 David Rothenberger
which                                        David Rothenberger
whois                                        David Rothenberger

Re: Python 3.5 and 3.6 removal (was Re: Bonfire of the Packages)

[Jon Turney]

On 24/03/2024 17:46, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> On 24/03/2024 17:31, Marco Atzeri via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>> On 24/03/2024 15:07, Jon Turney wrote:
>>> On 24/09/2023 13:32, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>>>
>>> I assume you are OK with the removal of python 3.5 (EOL Sept 2020) 
>>> and 3.6 (EOL Dec 2021)?
>>>
>>> (I'm still dealing with cleaning up the final pieces of python27 
>>> detritus, but these should hopefully be much smaller tasks)
>>>
>>
>> nothing should depend from 3.5
>> not sure for 3.6
> 
> I've automated some of the analysis I was doing for python2 packages and 
> the results are now available at [1].
> 
> So yeah, it looks like nothing uses 3.5.

I've removed some 3.4 detritus, and 3.5

Perhaps you can clarify the situation with python-pip: python-pip 
19.0.3-1, 19.1.1-1 and 19.2.3-1 are not evaluated are being removable, 
despite python35-pip being not needed anymore, as that source also 
produces python-pip-wheel, which is depended upon by 
python3{6,7,8,9}-virtualenv.

A similar situation exists with python-setuptools, python35-setuptools 
and python-setuptools-wheel.

(virtualenv also depends on python-wheel-wheel, but that tracks the 
latest version)

> There are just a couple of packages using 3.6, I guess I'll ping the 
> maintainers about those.
> 
> [1] https://cygwin.com/packages/reports/python_rebuilds.html

It looks like the situation with 3.6 is a bit more complex, as some 
things have a generic python3 dependency, rather than python36 as they 
should, so that report isn't complete.

I have some tools to correct those dependencies, so the situation should 
become clearer after I run those...

Re: Python 3.5 and 3.6 removal (was Re: Bonfire of the Packages)

[David Rothenberger]

On 3/30/2024 8:25 AM, Jon Turney wrote:
> On 29/03/2024 18:32, David Rothenberger via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>> On 3/28/2024 10:50 AM, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> [...]
>>> David,
>>>
>>> Is it possible to update/rebuild rdiff-backup, which replies upon the 
>>> soon-to-be removed python36?
>>>
>>> (Or indicate that you are no longer interested in maintaining this 
>>> package, which will probably lead to it's removal).
>>
>> Please remove me as the maintainer from that package. I no longer use 
>> it, and no longer have an environment for building packages for Cygwin.
> 
> No problem. Thanks for maintaining it in the past.
> 
> Is the same true for your other packages?
> 
> $ grep Rothenberger cygwin-pkg-maint | grep -v ORPHANED
> cyrus-sasl                                   David Rothenberger
> flac                                         David Rothenberger
> libao                                        David Rothenberger
> libapr1                                      David Rothenberger
> libaprutil1                                  David Rothenberger
> libkate                                      David Rothenberger
> libogg                                       David Rothenberger
> librsync                                     David Rothenberger
> libtheora                                    David Rothenberger
> libvorbis                                    David Rothenberger
> rdiff-backup                                 David Rothenberger
> speex                                        David Rothenberger
> speexdsp                                     David Rothenberger
> vorbis-tools                                 David Rothenberger
> which                                        David Rothenberger
> whois                                        David Rothenberger

Yes, I'm afraid it is.

Regards,
David

-- 
David Rothenberger  ----  daveroth@acm.org

Re: Python 3.5 and 3.6 removal (was Re: Bonfire of the Packages)

[Jon Turney]

On 01/04/2024 18:16, David Rothenberger via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> On 3/30/2024 8:25 AM, Jon Turney wrote:
>> On 29/03/2024 18:32, David Rothenberger via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>>> On 3/28/2024 10:50 AM, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> David,
>>>>
>>>> Is it possible to update/rebuild rdiff-backup, which replies upon 
>>>> the soon-to-be removed python36?
>>>>
>>>> (Or indicate that you are no longer interested in maintaining this 
>>>> package, which will probably lead to it's removal).
>>>
>>> Please remove me as the maintainer from that package. I no longer use 
>>> it, and no longer have an environment for building packages for Cygwin.
>>
>> No problem. Thanks for maintaining it in the past.
>>
>> Is the same true for your other packages?
>>
>> $ grep Rothenberger cygwin-pkg-maint | grep -v ORPHANED
>> cyrus-sasl                                   David Rothenberger
>> flac                                         David Rothenberger
>> libao                                        David Rothenberger
>> libapr1                                      David Rothenberger
>> libaprutil1                                  David Rothenberger
>> libkate                                      David Rothenberger
>> libogg                                       David Rothenberger
>> librsync                                     David Rothenberger
>> libtheora                                    David Rothenberger
>> libvorbis                                    David Rothenberger
>> rdiff-backup                                 David Rothenberger
>> speex                                        David Rothenberger
>> speexdsp                                     David Rothenberger
>> vorbis-tools                                 David Rothenberger
>> which                                        David Rothenberger
>> whois                                        David Rothenberger
> 
> Yes, I'm afraid it is.

Done.  Thanks for all your work on these in the past.

Please accept this virtual gold-plated solid 1/10th-scale pocket watch 
as a token of our appreciation!

Re: Python 3.5 and 3.6 removal (was Re: Bonfire of the Packages)

[Takashi Yano]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 15:38:25 +0100
Jon Turney wrote:
> On 01/04/2024 18:16, David Rothenberger via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> > On 3/30/2024 8:25 AM, Jon Turney wrote:
> >> On 29/03/2024 18:32, David Rothenberger via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> >>> On 3/28/2024 10:50 AM, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>>> David,
> >>>>
> >>>> Is it possible to update/rebuild rdiff-backup, which replies upon 
> >>>> the soon-to-be removed python36?
> >>>>
> >>>> (Or indicate that you are no longer interested in maintaining this 
> >>>> package, which will probably lead to it's removal).
> >>>
> >>> Please remove me as the maintainer from that package. I no longer use 
> >>> it, and no longer have an environment for building packages for Cygwin.
> >>
> >> No problem. Thanks for maintaining it in the past.
> >>
> >> Is the same true for your other packages?
> >>
> >> $ grep Rothenberger cygwin-pkg-maint | grep -v ORPHANED
> >> cyrus-sasl                                   David Rothenberger
> >> flac                                         David Rothenberger
> >> libao                                        David Rothenberger
> >> libapr1                                      David Rothenberger
> >> libaprutil1                                  David Rothenberger
> >> libkate                                      David Rothenberger
> >> libogg                                       David Rothenberger
> >> librsync                                     David Rothenberger
> >> libtheora                                    David Rothenberger
> >> libvorbis                                    David Rothenberger
> >> rdiff-backup                                 David Rothenberger
> >> speex                                        David Rothenberger
> >> speexdsp                                     David Rothenberger
> >> vorbis-tools                                 David Rothenberger
> >> which                                        David Rothenberger
> >> whois                                        David Rothenberger
> > 
> > Yes, I'm afraid it is.
> 
> Done.  Thanks for all your work on these in the past.

Hi, I would like to take over the maintenance of:
> >> flac                                         David Rothenberger
> >> libao                                        David Rothenberger
> >> libogg                                       David Rothenberger
> >> libtheora                                    David Rothenberger
> >> libvorbis                                    David Rothenberger
> >> speex                                        David Rothenberger
> >> speexdsp                                     David Rothenberger
> >> vorbis-tools                                 David Rothenberger
if anyone would not.

Thanks in advance.

-- 
Takashi Yano <takashi.yano@nifty.ne.jp>

Re: Python 3.5 and 3.6 removal (was Re: Bonfire of the Packages)

[Jon Turney]

On 02/04/2024 15:58, Takashi Yano via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 15:38:25 +0100
> Jon Turney wrote:
>> On 01/04/2024 18:16, David Rothenberger via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>>> On 3/30/2024 8:25 AM, Jon Turney wrote:
>>>> On 29/03/2024 18:32, David Rothenberger via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>>>>> On 3/28/2024 10:50 AM, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>> David,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it possible to update/rebuild rdiff-backup, which replies upon
>>>>>> the soon-to-be removed python36?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Or indicate that you are no longer interested in maintaining this
>>>>>> package, which will probably lead to it's removal).
>>>>>
>>>>> Please remove me as the maintainer from that package. I no longer use
>>>>> it, and no longer have an environment for building packages for Cygwin.
>>>>
>>>> No problem. Thanks for maintaining it in the past.
>>>>
>>>> Is the same true for your other packages?
>>>>
>>>> $ grep Rothenberger cygwin-pkg-maint | grep -v ORPHANED
>>>> cyrus-sasl                                   David Rothenberger
>>>> flac                                         David Rothenberger
>>>> libao                                        David Rothenberger
>>>> libapr1                                      David Rothenberger
>>>> libaprutil1                                  David Rothenberger
>>>> libkate                                      David Rothenberger
>>>> libogg                                       David Rothenberger
>>>> librsync                                     David Rothenberger
>>>> libtheora                                    David Rothenberger
>>>> libvorbis                                    David Rothenberger
>>>> rdiff-backup                                 David Rothenberger
>>>> speex                                        David Rothenberger
>>>> speexdsp                                     David Rothenberger
>>>> vorbis-tools                                 David Rothenberger
>>>> which                                        David Rothenberger
>>>> whois                                        David Rothenberger
>>>
>>> Yes, I'm afraid it is.
>>
>> Done.  Thanks for all your work on these in the past.
> 
> Hi, I would like to take over the maintenance of:
>>>> flac                                         David Rothenberger
>>>> libao                                        David Rothenberger
>>>> libogg                                       David Rothenberger
>>>> libtheora                                    David Rothenberger
>>>> libvorbis                                    David Rothenberger
>>>> speex                                        David Rothenberger
>>>> speexdsp                                     David Rothenberger
>>>> vorbis-tools                                 David Rothenberger
> if anyone would not.
> 

Thanks. I added these to your packages.

I generated missing packaging history repos for some of these from the 
CTM history.  Please let me know if there's any errors or if you'd like 
those removed.

I didn't check, but if any of these are no longer carried by recent 
linux distros, maybe think about if it's actually useful to keep on 
having a package for it...

Re: Python 3.5 and 3.6 removal (was Re: Bonfire of the Packages)

[Takashi Yano]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2024 13:46:18 +0100
Jon Turney wrote:
> On 02/04/2024 15:58, Takashi Yano via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 15:38:25 +0100
> > Jon Turney wrote:
> >> On 01/04/2024 18:16, David Rothenberger via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> >>> On 3/30/2024 8:25 AM, Jon Turney wrote:
> >>>> On 29/03/2024 18:32, David Rothenberger via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> >>>>> On 3/28/2024 10:50 AM, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>>> David,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Is it possible to update/rebuild rdiff-backup, which replies upon
> >>>>>> the soon-to-be removed python36?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (Or indicate that you are no longer interested in maintaining this
> >>>>>> package, which will probably lead to it's removal).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please remove me as the maintainer from that package. I no longer use
> >>>>> it, and no longer have an environment for building packages for Cygwin.
> >>>>
> >>>> No problem. Thanks for maintaining it in the past.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is the same true for your other packages?
> >>>>
> >>>> $ grep Rothenberger cygwin-pkg-maint | grep -v ORPHANED
> >>>> cyrus-sasl                                   David Rothenberger
> >>>> flac                                         David Rothenberger
> >>>> libao                                        David Rothenberger
> >>>> libapr1                                      David Rothenberger
> >>>> libaprutil1                                  David Rothenberger
> >>>> libkate                                      David Rothenberger
> >>>> libogg                                       David Rothenberger
> >>>> librsync                                     David Rothenberger
> >>>> libtheora                                    David Rothenberger
> >>>> libvorbis                                    David Rothenberger
> >>>> rdiff-backup                                 David Rothenberger
> >>>> speex                                        David Rothenberger
> >>>> speexdsp                                     David Rothenberger
> >>>> vorbis-tools                                 David Rothenberger
> >>>> which                                        David Rothenberger
> >>>> whois                                        David Rothenberger
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I'm afraid it is.
> >>
> >> Done.  Thanks for all your work on these in the past.
> > 
> > Hi, I would like to take over the maintenance of:
> >>>> flac                                         David Rothenberger
> >>>> libao                                        David Rothenberger
> >>>> libogg                                       David Rothenberger
> >>>> libtheora                                    David Rothenberger
> >>>> libvorbis                                    David Rothenberger
> >>>> speex                                        David Rothenberger
> >>>> speexdsp                                     David Rothenberger
> >>>> vorbis-tools                                 David Rothenberger
> > if anyone would not.
> > 
> 
> Thanks. I added these to your packages.

Thanks!

> I generated missing packaging history repos for some of these from the 
> CTM history.  Please let me know if there's any errors or if you'd like 
> those removed.
> 
> I didn't check, but if any of these are no longer carried by recent 
> linux distros, maybe think about if it's actually useful to keep on 
> having a package for it...

All these packages are required by my other packages such as ffmpeg,
timidity++, pulseaudio, etc. except for vorbis-tools.
Also, these still exist in fedora rpms repos.

-- 
Takashi Yano <takashi.yano@nifty.ne.jp>

Re: Python 3.5 and 3.6 removal (was Re: Bonfire of the Packages)

[Ake Rehnman]

Den tors 28 mars 2024 kl 18:50 skrev Jon Turney <jon.turney@dronecode.org.uk>:
>
> On 24/03/2024 17:46, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> > On 24/03/2024 17:31, Marco Atzeri via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> >> On 24/03/2024 15:07, Jon Turney wrote:
> >>> On 24/09/2023 13:32, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I assume you are OK with the removal of python 3.5 (EOL Sept 2020)
> >>> and 3.6 (EOL Dec 2021)?
> >>>
> >>> (I'm still dealing with cleaning up the final pieces of python27
> >>> detritus, but these should hopefully be much smaller tasks)
> >>>
> >> nothing should depend from 3.5
> >> not sure for 3.6
> >
> > I've automated some of the analysis I was doing for python2 packages and
> > the results are now available at [1].
> >
> > So yeah, it looks like nothing uses 3.5.
> >
> > There are just a couple of packages using 3.6, I guess I'll ping the
> > maintainers about those.
> >
> > [1] https://cygwin.com/packages/reports/python_rebuilds.html
>
> Ake,

Hi Jon, sorry for the late reply.
>
> Is it possible to update/rebuild libftdi1, which only publishes python
> bindings for the soon-to-be removed python36?

I am not sure, I have not looked at it for so many years, I have not
even used cygwin since I don't remember...
>
> (Or indicate that you are no longer interested in maintaining this
> package, which will probably lead to it's removal).

Do you have any stats on how many installs it was last year?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>

Re: Python 3.5 and 3.6 removal (was Re: Bonfire of the Packages)

[Jon Turney]

On 18/04/2024 07:01, Ake Rehnman wrote:
> Den tors 28 mars 2024 kl 18:50 skrev Jon Turney <jon.turney@dronecode.org.uk>:
>>
>> On 24/03/2024 17:46, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>>> On 24/03/2024 17:31, Marco Atzeri via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>>>> On 24/03/2024 15:07, Jon Turney wrote:
>>>>> On 24/09/2023 13:32, Jon Turney via Cygwin-apps wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume you are OK with the removal of python 3.5 (EOL Sept 2020)
>>>>> and 3.6 (EOL Dec 2021)?
>>>>>
>>>>> (I'm still dealing with cleaning up the final pieces of python27
>>>>> detritus, but these should hopefully be much smaller tasks)
>>>>>
>>>> nothing should depend from 3.5
>>>> not sure for 3.6
>>>
>>> I've automated some of the analysis I was doing for python2 packages and
>>> the results are now available at [1].
>>>
>>> So yeah, it looks like nothing uses 3.5.
>>>
>>> There are just a couple of packages using 3.6, I guess I'll ping the
>>> maintainers about those.
>>>
>>> [1] https://cygwin.com/packages/reports/python_rebuilds.html
>>
>> Ake,
> 
> Hi Jon, sorry for the late reply.

No problem.

>> Is it possible to update/rebuild libftdi1, which only publishes python
>> bindings for the soon-to-be removed python36?
> 
> I am not sure, I have not looked at it for so many years, I have not
> even used cygwin since I don't remember...
>>
>> (Or indicate that you are no longer interested in maintaining this
>> package, which will probably lead to it's removal).
> 
> Do you have any stats on how many installs it was last year?

I'm afraid we don't collect that information.

If you are not using it anymore, it seems like the logical thing to do 
is orphan this package (and libconfuse, it's dependency, your only other 
package).

Thanks for your work in the past.