On 24 Feb 2016 17:12, "Jason L Tibbitts III" <[email protected]> wrote: > > You took this off-list; was that intentional? Feel free to forward my > message back to the list if you wish. > > >>>>> "JH" == James Hogarth <[email protected]> writes: > > JH> I suppose having the guidelines prefer requires on python-foo rather > JH> than python2-foo, which would also solve this, only just kicks the > JH> ball down the road a little and makes a system default switch harder > JH> beyond the foreseeable future. > > Right; we really want to get away from anything having dependencies on > the "un-python-versioned" packages or even using the "unversioned macros" > unless they really do not care which "python-version" of a package they > get. And even then, it would be far better to just make it explicit. > > JH> Surely you mean supplemented with new python libraries brought into > JH> base? > > Well, if additional packages crop up which would need dummy packages > then obviously we could add them. It would be kind of obvious when > someone tries to build something for EPEL7 and finds that they'd need to > add a conditional to get the "un-python-versioned" package, at which > point they could simply ask for the dummy to come into existence. > > JH> Unless you envision internally at Red Hat the specs there > JH> being changed in a future milestone to provide the python2-foo stuff > JH> in addition to python-foo and being more similar to the Fedora/EPEL > JH> packages? > > Well, it sure would be nice. > > JH> Are you planning this for EPEL6 as well or just EPEL7? > > I wasn't, but I could. > > JH> Admittedly packaging for EPEL6 means a lot of conditionals anyway if > JH> the spec files weren't separated in the first place... > > We're trying to eliminate as much of that as possible. It's a long > process. > > JH> If the version of python2-foo is set to zero how do you picture > JH> Requires: python2-foo >= 0.4 being resolved? > > Not sure. I'm also not entirely sure it matters; either the version you > need is available in RHEL or there's no point in building the package. > And if it does matter, all we have to do is pick the same version as the > base RHEL package with a lower release (probably just 0). > > - J<
Replying to get this back on list... Apologies was responding on my tablet and didn't notice it defaulted to reply, not reply all, unlike my desktop...
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[email protected]
