On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 7:04 PM Miro Hrončok <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 03. 12. 19 0:54, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 12:38:01AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > >> On 02. 12. 19 23:09, Ken Dreyer wrote: > >>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 11:47 AM Neal Gompa <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:34 PM Ken Dreyer <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi folks, > >>>>> > >>>>> In EPEL 7 we have some packages with "python34" and "python36" > >>>>> prefixes in their names. I guess this is a consequence of using the > >>>>> %{python3_pkgversion} macro over time. > >>>>> > >>>>> Now that RHEL 7 has Python 3.6, and we want to deprecate Python 3.4 in > >>>>> EPEL 7, I'm wondering about this. > >>>>> > >>>>> If I'm introducing a Python 3 subpackage in a new build today, should > >>>>> I name this sub-package "python3-foo" or > >>>>> "python%{python3_pkgversion}-foo" ? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> The subpackage should be "python%{python3_pkgversion}-foo" and you > >>>> should also make sure you have "%{?python_provide:%python_provide > >>>> python%{python3_pkgversion}-foo}" in the subpackage declaration too. > >>> > >>> This is confusing to me, and it diverges from what Fedora does. Can we > >>> just reduce this down to "python3-" now that RHEL 7 has python3, and > >>> we'll probably never put another Python version into EPEL 7? > >> > >> We **can** but we **haven't yet**. IMHO doing it in random packages is > >> wrong. > >> > >> Currently, python36-foo is form EPEL (and if done right, provides > >> python3-foo). > >> OTOH python3-bar is from RHEL (and if done right, provides python36-bar). > >> > >> They both provide both names, but from first glance, the origin of the > >> package is obvious. I kinda like that. > >> > >> If we decide to redo this, it will be a lot of boring work for no clear > >> benefit. > >> If we decide to only allow it for new packages, it would be a mess. > >> > >> That said, technically: > >> > >> - it works either way > >> - there is no real EPEL packaging guideline forcing one way or the other > > > > I think we should encourage people to just use python3-foo now, but I > > agree it would be a lot of work to try and convert everything to do > > that. > > > > The orig reason was so we could move python stacks forward since we were > > maintaining them in epel. Since python 3.6 is in rhel and rhel7 is past > > the point where I would expect many changes, I think 3.6 is here to > > stay, so we dont really need it anymore. It's just extra noise that > > makes spec files less readable now. > > If we want to get rid of it, we might just: > > Fix the cases where srpm is called python3-foo and subpackage python36-foo. > Switch the %{python3_pkgversion} to 3 (= remove the redefinition from EPEL). > > Rebuild everything. Profit. > > The problem of course, is bootstrapping. >
We should probably consider rebuilding all the Python 3 packages in EPEL7 no matter what so that the python3.6dist() Provides get generated, though. The dependency generator was backported to EL7 and is used with the Python 3 stack. It just isn't very useful yet because not all the packages were rebuilt after python3 was introduced in RHEL 7. Though why the --majorver-provides switch was removed from the attr, I don't know. After that, we can backport the %python_enable_dependency_generator macro to EPEL7... -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
