python3Packages.pyls-mypy: remove

[JamieMagee]

Description of changes

Remove pyls-mypy

pyls-mypy depends on the deprecated palantir/python-language-server. nixpkgs doesn't package the palantir version, instead we package microsoft/python-language-server. I don't know if they are interchangable, but regardless, pyls-mypy, palantir/python-language-server, and microsoft/python-language-server are all deprecated.

The replacement for palantir/python-language-server and microsoft/python-language-server is python-lsp-server which is already in nixpkgs. The replacement for pyls-mypy is pylsp-mypy and is also already available in nixpkgs

Related to #209585

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandbox = true set in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 23.05 Release Notes (or backporting 22.11 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
  • (Release notes changes) Ran nixos/doc/manual/md-to-db.sh to update generated release notes
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

[GGG-KILLER]

I don't know what the usual procedure for obsoleting packages in favor of others is, but instead of outright removing the attribute, wouldn't it be better to add an error message telling people who use pyls-mypy to use pylsp-mypy instead?

[JamieMagee]

I added an alias with a note.

[ajs124]

needs a rebase, but otherwise LGTM.

if you want to, you can add the nice and detailed explanation you wrote in the description (thanks for doing that btw) of this PR to the commit message.
that way, if someone finds the removal in the git history, they don't need to go to github to figure out the reasoning.

[JamieMagee]

Rebased and added the explanation from the PR to the commit message

[JamieMagee]

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 209582 run on x86_64-linux 1

[ajs124]

needs another rebase. presumably after the merge of #209585

[ajs124]

no merge commits please. I'll merge this after CI passes, if there aren't any objections.