On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 03:03:46PM +0200, philippe makowski wrote: > Hi, > > remember this first draft (http://mageia.org/wiki/doku.php?id=python_policy) > that is still a draft > > now we have also Python3 so we really need to write our policy > I see mainly two majors points : > > 1/ pyc, pyo management > 2/ having Python2 and Python3 > > about 1/ : > it seems that the best would be to package only py (smallest packages) > and having triggers on install and on remove to manage pyc and pyo > (That's in fact the Debian way > (http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ch-module_packages.html#s-byte_compilation)) > > if we go this way, we need someone to write triggers and people to > review all Python packages > (I'm ok to work on that review, for triggers, I have no clue on how to > do, but may be that with some help I could try)
The tricky part was not to make sure that file are properly ghosted ? > about 2/ : > > again we have to review all Python packages to see if they run under > Python3 or not and to package them for Python2 and Python3 > (I'm ok to work on that review) > may be that the Fedora policy can help us for that ?: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Python I would be in favor of treating python2 and python 3 as 2 differents languages. The rational is that : - we cannot garantee to have support for both - we will likely have some module who would be updated only on python 3 sooner or later - we will need to do upgrade of package at different time, since both python2 and python3 are released at different time. So rather than a complex scheme that will confuse packagers, just consider they are separate, and use the almost same policy ( with s/python/python3/ ) Regarding a review of all package, that sound like daunting task :/ -- Michael Scherer
