Oh well, anyway, since it was not my purpose to actually make the sys.stdout ->
print changes, they're back to sys.stdout.write in this latest revision.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Oops, the print stuff is like I said in the macros shipped by Fedora's
python-rpm-macros, not here (here they were using sys.stdout.write). But the
rest of what I said still stands.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on
`.py` suffixes removed.
I don't think there's anything fragile about this particular use of `print`,
nor does it require the `print_function` import. It is also nothing new, the
previous `%python_sitelib` and `%python_sitearch` definitions used it too.
--
You are receiving this because you
It's missing the `from __future__ import print_function`.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Using print() looks fragile from a Python 2 vs Python 3 POV.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Conan-Kudo requested changes on this pull request.
I would suggest renaming the files so that they don't end in `.py`. That way,
they won't be byte compiled by either the interpreter or by rpm during the
package build process.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/221
-- Commit Summary --
* Use scripts instead of python -c to retrieve %python_* values
* Get %python_version from platform.python_version_tuple
-- File Changes --
M