Hey all, Things have changed in Python runtime packaging since we started introducing alternative Python versions years ago. For one, we now always have fully versioned source packages, and now we have a flag for whether the packages are "main runtime" vs "alternate runtime". Another is that RHEL now offers multiple Python runtimes that you can build packages from.
I'm wondering if it makes sense to continue having the logic in the Python runtime packaging for "flatpackage" when we can now just have them build as alternative runtimes. This doesn't get rid of the concept of a "main runtime" that is generally supported by the macros, but it brings us closer in line with what our downstreams are doing. This could also ease Python transitions in the future, since we wouldn't have the Python runtime ripped out from under us for DNF as we rebootstrap the whole environment to a new Python version default. At least for me, it would also make it easier for me to trivially rebuild packages in COPR against an alternate Python version for specific purposes, too, since the only required change to switch to an alternate runtime would be setting %__python/%__python3 and making sure the subpackage has the fully qualified Python version name in it. What do you all think? Is this crazy talk or something we might want to think about? -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
