On 7 January 2015 at 04:05, Bohuslav Kabrda <[email protected]> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- > > Hi all, > > I know I've been promising this for quite some time to several people, > so I > > finally managed to put together a proposal for packaging Python 3 in > EPEL 7 > > (it'd also scale to EPEL 6 for that matter). > > I've created a wiki page [1] with the proposal and I'd like to hear > comments > > and thoughts on it. There are some TODOs and variants in few places - I'd > > like to hear your opinions on these, or perhaps suggestions on better > > approaches. > > I'll create new documents with the updated proposal at some points > during the > > discussion, so that people can easily see where the proposal is going > > without having to compare wiki revisions. > > > > Is there any other list/interested parties that should be put in CC of > this > > mail? If so, please feel free to respond and do that yourself. > > > > Thanks! > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Slavek Kabrda > > > > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/EPEL7_Python3 > > Let's reiterate: > - Nick Coghlan posted an interesting proposal to the discussion section in > my proposal (my reaction is in the blue frame) [1]. I'd appreciate more > comments on this. > - From the feedback gathered on this list: > - We should have /usr/bin/python3 pointing to a python3X build. The > question is which one this will be during transitional periods between 3X > and 3X+1. My thinking is that we should point /usr/bin/python3 to 3X+1 at > the time of retiring 3X (IMO there is no ideal time to do that, so it's not > really important). > - As for dist-git possibilities, Orion would prefer to use current > dist-git repos with epel-7 branches. It's not my preference (for reasons > mentioned in the proposal), but I'm not against it if that is what others > wish. > - Stephen Smoogen mentioned that the transitional period during which > python3X and python3X+1 exist can be anywhere from 6 weeks to 2 months. I'm > starting to think that we should only specify the minimum time for which 3X > will be kept. So my proposal would be sth. like "3X is kept for minimum of > 6 weeks in parallel to 3X+1. After this, it is retired as soon as all > stakeholders have rebuilt against 3X+1." (keeping it a bit vague is a good > thing here, I think) > - As I noted in one of my emails, we don't have to worry about conflicts > with RHSCL. New collections from RHSCL will be named with "rh-" prefix and > thus won't conflict with python3X stacks. > > Since it doesn't seem that there was anything very problematic, let's > discuss the points mentioned above after which I should be able to finalize > the proposal and make it official (and then we could all get to building > :)). > I'm quite sure that we'll still hit some technical issues, e.g. macro > naming for parallel stacks, but I believe we can discuss and solve these on > the way. > > Thank you for circling back on this. I was going to try and contact you today about python26 which is orphaned in EPEL-5 and was going to see if we could use the same logic for making a python27 tree for EL5 and EL6? > Thanks. > > -- > Regards, > Slavek Kabrda > > [1] > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_talk:Bkabrda/EPEL7_Python3#Sharing_Packages_between_Python_3_installations.3F > _______________________________________________ > epel-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel > -- Stephen J Smoogen.
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
