- Original Message -
> From: "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek"
> To: "Fedora Python SIG"
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 2:54:44 AM
> Subject: Re: Inconsistencies in the Fedora Packaging Guidelines for Python
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 05:35:03PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > On 21.3.2016 20:13, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 06:46:00PM -, Tomas Orsava wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Since the spec file does package both p2 and p3 versions of the
> > >>> executable
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> There's a difference between *modules* (in the Python sense,
> > >> i.e. Python libraries) and *executables*. We almost always want
> > >> to provide modules for both Python versions, but executables
> > >> only rarely so.
> > >>
> > >> The example spec file does *not* package both versions of the
> > >> executable.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, it does.
> Ah, OK. It didn't at some point and I didn't check.
> It seems that the Guidelines:Python page could still use some
> editing. I think most of the info is there, but it's not very clear.
>
> In particular, the multiple-executables case is again very prominent
> (as this thread shows), and it's really applicable to a miniscule
> percentage of packages (literally: sphinx, pytest, nosetest, a bunch
> of python development and installation tools. There's a spattering
> of other random packages, which might be mistakes. E.g. python-nibabel
> also provides versioned executables, but that I don't think there's a
> good reason for that). The way that Guidelines are written only serves
> to confuse packagers.
>
> > > %files -n python2-%{srcname}
> > > %license COPYING
> > > %doc README.rst
> > > %{python2_sitelib}/*
> > > %{_bindir}/sample-exec-2.7< HERE
> > >
> > > %files -n python3-%{srcname}
> > > %license COPYING
> > > %doc README.rst
> > > %{python3_sitelib}/*
> > > %{_bindir}/sample-exec< HERE
> > > %{_bindir}/sample-exec-3.4< HERE
> > >
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file
> >
> > I would suggest that the unversioned binary shouldn't necessarily be
> > part of a versioned python package (like pythonX-), but I
> > guess this is something that people expect these days anyway...
>
> The alternative would to add yet another subpackage. Most of the
> time that would be overkill. In the common case it works just fine
> to put the binaries in py2 or py3 subpackage.
I'll just leave this here
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/558
>
> Zbyszek
> ___
> python-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[email protected]
>
--
Robert Kuska
{rkuska}
___
python-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[email protected]
