Re: Adjusting the way Fedora runs Python's test suite

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > Hi folks, > > While working on bootstrapping a new community sclo-python collection, > I ran into some readability problems with the way the SCL Python spec > file runs the test suite: it uses --verbose mode, which means

Orphaned several Python packages

Hi all, since I'm no longer using following Python packages and don't have time to maintain them, I'm orphaning them. Feel free to take them: python-dingus python-django-keyedcache python-django-profile python-django-roa python-django-sorting python-remoteobjects -- Regards, Slavek Kabrda

Re: python: dropping the .py files [was Re: Fedora 23 cloud image (and, for that matter, minimal anything)] bloat

- Original Message - > On 09/25/2015 08:36 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 10:09:50AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote: > >> It's nice to be able to edit the .py for testing without going through > >> hoops or building/installing rpms. > > > > Right, but you know that if

Re: Python 3 additions to the Fedora 23 release notes?

- Original Message - Something Joe Brockmeier mentioned in his Fedora Marketing talk at Flock last week was the need for development teams to be active in providing content for the release announcements. With the Fedora 23 Alpha coming out last week, I looked at the Release Notes to

Re: nothing provides /bin/python needed by mercurial-3.5-1.fc23.x86_64

- Original Message - I'm stuck on this (again). According to advice here: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-June/211666.html I just needed to use Requires: /usr/bin/python But I tried changing Requires: python to Requires: /usr/bin/python and it

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

- Original Message - On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 10:03:00AM -0400, Robert Kuska wrote: - Original Message - From: Jason L Tibbitts III ti...@math.uh.edu To: devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 11:34:06 PM Subject: [Guidelines change]

Re: F23 System Wide Change: Python 3 as Default

- Original Message - On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda sla...@redhat.com wrote: It is written in a scope what does 'default' stands for. Also from a additional porting POV (packages which ain't covered by scope and are python2 only) it is important to have stated

Re: F23 System Wide Change: Python 3 as Default

- Original Message - - Original Message - From: Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 9:11:36 PM Subject: Re: F23 System Wide Change: Python 3 as Default Greetings. In today's FESCo meeting we had a lot of

Re: F23 System Wide Change: Python 3 as Default

- Original Message - On Thu, Jun 11, 2015, at 04:40 PM, Adam Miller wrote: I think the point that Colin is trying to make is that while Atomic Host does not depend on Ansible being installed, it is a very popular utility used to remotely manage (potentially large) sets of Atomic

Re: F23 System Wide Change: Python 3 as Default

- Original Message - On Thu, Jun 11, 2015, at 09:03 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: Which means that it isn't *in* the Atomic host itself, but it is only used to *control instances* of Atomic host, is that correct? If so, I see no conflict with the proposed change. It's

Re: F23 System Wide Change: Python 3 as Default

- Original Message - On Thu, Jun 11, 2015, at 04:01 AM, Robert Kuska wrote: Does it mean that Ansible is shipped by default with Atomic host? We were working with data provided by https://git.fedorahosted.org/git/fedora-atomic.git and there is no ansible listed within

Handing over Python maintenance and Python 3 as Default

Hi all, for past two years I've been paid by Red Hat to work on Python maintenance in Fedora (among other things). Since I'm now moving to a different position inside Red Hat, I'll be handing over my work to some of my fellow teammates: - python and python3 will be maintained by Matej Stuchlik

Re: [EPEL-devel] EpSCO Meeting Agenda: 06-Mar-2015 17:00 UTC

- Original Message - Sorry for the delay in getting this out. We will be continuing the EPEL Python discussion We will be in #epel on Freenode for our weekly EPEL Steering Committee meeting Friday 06-Mar-2015 at 17:00 UTC. Proposed Agenda items: 1.) Python 3.X Discussion - Dual

Re: [EPEL-devel] Python 3 discussion

- Original Message - On 03/03/2015 06:31 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: Today, I've made some changes to the proposal to accomodate comments from the previous meeting and from discussion on this list. The diff is here: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ABkabrda

Re: [EPEL-devel] Python 3 discussion

- Original Message - On 03/03/2015 08:35 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 07:46:00 -0500 (EST) Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com wrote: ^ Is this step part of a coordinated mass-rebuild, or is this just a period of time after we make the announcement: Hey Packagers

Re: [EPEL-devel] Python 3 discussion

- Original Message - On Mar 02 06:53, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: - Original Message - ...SNIP... I think applications should use /usr/bin/python3.4 (at least packaged applications). Otherwise we could theoretically end up in a situation where /usr/bin/python3 is owned

Re: [EPEL-devel] Python 3 discussion

- Original Message - snip * applications will need to be rebuilt to pick up a change from python34-* to python35-* which is a bit unfortunate. Is there any reason why we shouldn't just upgrade applications to the python35-* stack straight away, by providing python3-*?

Re: Apps using default Python in Fedora vs. EPEL

- Original Message - On 27 February 2015 at 11:02, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 25, 2015 3:14 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote: For those not following along with the FPC ticket, Toshio and Tomspur have a nice write-up of the options at

Re: [EPEL-devel] Python 3 discussion

- Original Message - This is a followup to the EPEL IRC meeting discussion about python 3. I had a couple questions which led me to take Slavek's excellent work and try some changes here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Orion/EPEL7_Python3 Main ideas: - (bikeshedding) - I

Re: [EPEL-devel] Python 3 discussion

- Original Message - Excerpts from Bohuslav Kabrda's message of 2015-03-02 21:59 +10:00: - Original Message - Under the current proposal every package with Python 3 dependencies would have to depend on a specific python3x-* package, so then it would be up to the

Re: [EPEL-devel] Friday EPEL meeting and python3x

- Original Message - Hello, I will not be able to attend, but Brian Stinson has offered to chair the meeting. An agenda will be sent out on Thursday, but I think the main focus will be on what is needed to get python3x into EPEL and in that discussion what things we are going to want

Re: [EPEL-devel] Python3x rpms (how do the IUS ones stack up with what we are looking for)

. I haven't looked too closely to see how they match up with the current proposal.. or if they would pass a fedora review yet. I wanted to bring them up as a strawman to look at for reference to what Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com had been aiming for (in case it helps. If it doesn't

Reverting Python 3 Migration Improvements Change

Hi, I have to inform you that I had to revert the Python 3 Migration Improvements change for F22 - more precisely, its parts that would've caused both Python 2 and Python 3 being on atomic host or minimal cloud image. The reason is mentioned in [1] - in short, policycoreutils-python3 has only

Re: [EPEL-devel] How to formalize and finish the Py3 proposal?

- Original Message - On Feb 19 04:54, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: Hi all, so I think everyone was able to express their opinions about my Python 3 proposal for EPEL [1] and I think it's time for me to formalize it, get it approved and actually do it. I'm however unsure about how

Re: Apps using default Python in Fedora vs. EPEL

- Original Message - I don't really feel strongly about this, I agree that your solution has a merit (and syspython *is* better than default_python :)). I think I'll open an FPC ticket to ask FPC for their opinions on this and then I'll start taking concrete steps [1] ;) to get this

Re: Apps using default Python in Fedora vs. EPEL

- Original Message - I will. Do you have any idea who I should talk to regarding EPEL? Is it also Dennis? Also dennis. Rel-eng is growing as a group so you could also put in a ticket/go to one of their weekly meetings but Dennis is probably still the one that knows the most about

Re: Filing Bugs for Python 3 Switch

- Original Message - On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 04:44:19 -0500 (EST) Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com wrote: I just had a quick IRC chat with DNF maintainer and he said we still wants to switch to py3 for F22. Lovely. Perhaps we could get the dnf folks, anaconda, qa and fesco all

Re: Filing Bugs for Python 3 Switch

- Original Message - On Thu, 2015-01-29 at 08:56 -0500, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: I'm regularly talking to some of Anaconda devs (mostly Vrata Podzimek) and they still think this is doable *without* introducing high number of regressions, that would be impossible to fix before F22

Re: Filing Bugs for Python 3 Switch

- Original Message - On 29 January 2015 at 07:39, Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com wrote: - Original Message - On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com wrote: - Original Message - On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:38 AM

Re: Filing Bugs for Python 3 Switch

- Original Message - On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 09:39:28 -0500 (EST) Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com wrote: Not sure about it being the default, but we've been testing it in DevAssistant for dependency installation on Python 3 and never encountered any problems. I was also contacted

Re: Filing Bugs for Python 3 Switch

- Original Message - On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 11:09:08 -0500 (EST) Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com wrote: Hi, I just filed 2 bugs [A], [B] for the Python 3 switch [C] and I realized that I should probably follow the mass bug filing policy. As I've said previously, we've already

Re: Filing Bugs for Python 3 Switch

- Original Message - On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:09:08AM -0500, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: Some general notes: If your package depends on Python because of a Python script that has /usr/bin/python in hashbang, you need to change this to /usr/bin/python3. All Requires and BuildRequires

Re: Filing Bugs for Python 3 Switch

- Original Message - So, at today's FESCo meeting there was a good deal of discussion about python as default: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2015-01-28/fesco.2015-01-28-18.02.log.html#l-41 in which we agreed defer this to F23, file bugs against rawhide

Re: Filing Bugs for Python 3 Switch

- Original Message - On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com wrote: - Original Message - On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Miloslav Trmač m...@redhat.com wrote: (Speaking only for myself, not for all of FESCo; hoping others will chime

Re: Filing Bugs for Python 3 Switch

- Original Message - On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:38 AM, Miloslav Trmač m...@redhat.com wrote: (Speaking only for myself, not for all of FESCo; hoping others will chime in.) - What if Anaconda does make it? :) I don’t know. I'm skeptical that will happen. Even if it does, that

Filing Bugs for Python 3 Switch

Hi, I just filed 2 bugs [A], [B] for the Python 3 switch [C] and I realized that I should probably follow the mass bug filing policy. As I've said previously, we've already had both Python 2 and Python 3 on LiveCDs for few releases, so it makes sense to move as much as possible to Python 3. My

Re: Apps using default Python in Fedora vs. EPEL

- Original Message - On 28 January 2015 at 03:32, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:50:07PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: What if, instead, we were able to add a new macro that let folks *explicitly* opt in to running in the system Python, but then

Re: python-sig and retiring python3-dateutil

- Original Message - Pete Travis m...@petetravis.com schrieb am Mon Jan 26 2015 at 5:24:32 PM: On 01/26/2015 08:53 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: Hi, since bug #1126521 seems to be progressing nicely, I think it would be nice to get in touch with

Apps using default Python in Fedora vs. EPEL

Hey all, I just wanted to ask for some thoughts on a problem (or rather a hardship) that is starting to show with the Python 3 transition in Fedora. I've been contacted by two maintainers of applications in Fedora for advice and have been thinking for some time how to solve this: Note: by

Re: Apps using default Python in Fedora vs. EPEL

- Original Message - On 27 January 2015 at 21:26, Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com wrote: Hey all, I just wanted to ask for some thoughts on a problem (or rather a hardship) that is starting to show with the Python 3 transition in Fedora. I've been contacted by two maintainers

Re: Python 3 as a Default - Status

- Original Message - On Thu, Jan 22, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: How exactly is Fedora Atomic generated? It seems that fedpra-cloud-atomic.ks has no %packages section... I can find out how we're doing with Atomic assuming I know how it's constructed

Re: Python 3 as a Default - Status

- Original Message - On Tue, Jan 20, 2015, at 08:22 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: Hi all, since the Python 3 as a Default change [1] has been accepted a while ago and is scheduled for F22, I'd like to share with you the status. The proposed change [1] mentions several goals

Re: Python 3 as a Default - Status

- Original Message - On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 11:31:12AM -0500, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: Yeah, as I've noted in the sum-up mail, it's clear that we won't be able to switch server (and possibly workstation) completely, although I'm quite sure we will be able to switch the minimal cloud

Re: Python 3 as a Default - Status

- Original Message - On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 08:22:25AM -0500, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: Hi all, since the Python 3 as a Default change [1] has been accepted a while ago and is scheduled for F22, I'd like to share with you the status. The proposed change [1] mentions several goals

Re: Python 3 as a Default - Status

- Original Message - On 21. 1. 2015 at 01:44:32, Haïkel wrote: Thanks for the heads-up. As for the cloud image, if we switch to yum, python-urlgrabber won't be needed anymore. Umm, yes, it will be - yum uses python-urlgrabber internally. Also worth mentioning that yum itself

Re: Python 3 as a Default - Status

- Original Message - On 21. 1. 2015 at 01:44:32, Haïkel wrote: Thanks for the heads-up. As for the cloud image, if we switch to yum, python-urlgrabber won't be needed anymore. Umm, yes, it will be - yum uses python-urlgrabber internally. Also worth mentioning that yum itself

Python 3 as a Default - Status

Hi all, since the Python 3 as a Default change [1] has been accepted a while ago and is scheduled for F22, I'd like to share with you the status. The proposed change [1] mentions several goals that should be reached to pronounce python3 the default: 1) DNF is the default package manager instead

Python 3 as a Default - Status

Hi all, since the Python 3 as a Default change [1] has been accepted a while ago and is scheduled for F22, I'd like to share with you the status. The proposed change [1] mentions several goals that should be reached to pronounce python3 the default: 1) DNF is the default package manager instead

Re: Meeting minutes for Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2015-01-14)

- Original Message - On 19 January 2015 at 05:08, Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com wrote: - Original Message - Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: Please note, that this proposal is absolutely not about imposing some restrictions on who can/should maintain what. It's

Re: Meeting minutes for Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2015-01-14)

- Original Message - Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: Please note, that this proposal is absolutely not about imposing some restrictions on who can/should maintain what. It's really just a categorization of packages based on our WG's perception of importance to Fedora. Sure

Re: Meeting minutes for Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2015-01-14)

- Original Message - Honza Horak wrote: * Fedora Rings (hhorak, 12:03:21) [snip] * IDEA: definition of ring 1 is a minimal set of packages that give you a functional system, with some sort of approval (hhorak, 13:31:21) * IDEA: ring 1 should be self-hosted --

Re: Meeting minutes for Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2015-01-14)

- Original Message - On 16 January 2015 at 01:31, Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com wrote: - Original Message - Honza Horak wrote: * Fedora Rings (hhorak, 12:03:21) [snip] * IDEA: definition of ring 1 is a minimal set of packages that give you

Re: [EPEL-devel] Proposal for Python 3 packaging in EPEL 7

- Original Message - Excerpts from Stephen John Smoogen's message of 2015-01-09 10:25 +10:00: On 8 January 2015 at 17:01, Dan Callaghan dcall...@redhat.com wrote: Personally I am not looking forward to maintaining more branches and/or (sub-)packages for every python3X-*. I

Re: [EPEL-devel] Proposal for Python 3 packaging in EPEL 7

Thank you for circling back on this. I was going to try and contact you today about python26 which is orphaned in EPEL-5 and was going to see if we could use the same logic for making a python27 tree for EL5 and EL6? Yeah, theoretically we can do that, although I'm not very keen on the

Re: [EPEL-devel] Proposal for Python 3 packaging in EPEL 7

- Original Message - On 9 January 2015 at 07:38, Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com wrote: Dave, thanks for the input. Yes, it's technically possible to put both dashes and dots in package name, although I'm sort of failing to see what the benefit of doing that would

Re: Remove gcc, gcc-c++ and make from minimal build root

- Original Message - Dear Fedora developers, I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making minimal build root really minimal, explicitly specifying build dependencies, etc. The topic originally spring out in this [1] discussion on packaging list. Interesting

Re: [EPEL-devel] Proposal for Python 3 packaging in EPEL 7

- Original Message - Is the EPIC proposal totally dead? It seems like that would be a nicer and more general solution to this problem (not wanting to ship a Python 3.x stack for 10 years). I'm not sure about that, but I think we can align python3 in epel with EPIC even if EPIC is

Re: [EPEL-devel] Proposal for Python 3 packaging in EPEL 7

On 7 January 2015 at 04:05, Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com wrote: - Original Message - Hi all, I know I've been promising this for quite some time to several people, so I finally managed to put together a proposal for packaging Python 3 in EPEL 7 (it'd

Re: [EPEL-devel] Proposal for Python 3 packaging in EPEL 7

- Original Message - On Wed, 2015-01-07 at 06:05 -0500, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: - Original Message - Hi all, I know I've been promising this for quite some time to several people, so I finally managed to put together a proposal for packaging Python 3 in EPEL 7

Re: [EPEL-devel] Proposal for Python 3 packaging in EPEL 7

- Original Message - Hi all, I know I've been promising this for quite some time to several people, so I finally managed to put together a proposal for packaging Python 3 in EPEL 7 (it'd also scale to EPEL 6 for that matter). I've created a wiki page [1] with the proposal and I'd like

Re: [RFC] Python_Eggs packaging guideline clarification draft

- Original Message - Changes --- 1. Replaced the term 'eggs' with 'egg metadata' in the whole wiki, while not messing up the URLs to this[1] on both occurances. 2. In section '1.1 Why egg metadata', changed the phrase Allowing end users to install eggs not made from

Re: Ramblings and questions regarding Fedora, but stemming from gnome-software and desktop environments

- Original Message - On 02/01/15 11:42, Richard Hughes wrote: Because as of now, gnome-software just doesn't fit the workstation bill I think you're misunderstanding what most developers do. We probably spend about 10 minutes installing development packages (on the command

Re: [EPEL-devel] Proposal for Python 3 packaging in EPEL 7

On 10 December 2014 at 03:48, Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com mailto:bkab...@redhat.com wrote: Hi all, I know I've been promising this for quite some time to several people, so I finally managed to put together a proposal for packaging Python 3

Re: Changes in Guidelines Connected to Python 3 as Default Change

- Original Message - Hi all, as you are well aware, there is the Python 3 as Default change proposed for F22 [1]. There are several guideline changes that will need to be done and some that may be done in order to improve the situation. I'd like to make this thread a sort of

Re: Maybe it is time to move tools to Python 3.x?

- Original Message - Hi, On 12/04/2014 02:30 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 08:13:42PM +0100, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: When I worked at Canonical there was a goal to move both internal and public tools to Python 3.x version. IIRC started somewhere around 12.04

Re: Maybe it is time to move tools to Python 3.x?

- Original Message - Hi, On 12/05/2014 03:08 PM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: - Original Message - Hi, On 12/04/2014 02:30 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 08:13:42PM +0100, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: When I worked at Canonical there was a goal to move

Re: Maybe it is time to move tools to Python 3.x?

- Original Message - W dniu 03.12.2014 o 20:30, Matthew Miller pisze: On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 08:13:42PM +0100, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: When I worked at Canonical there was a goal to move both internal and public tools to Python 3.x version. IIRC started somewhere around 12.04

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Changes in Guidelines Connected to Python 3 as Default Change

- Original Message - On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 12:51:40AM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: On 4 Dec 2014 00:38, Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com wrote: - (This is not really related to the switch, but more of a general remark) In [4], it says that python 3 version of the executable

Re: Meeting minutes from Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2014-12-03)

Action Items * bkabrda will ask java guys to create a wiki page summarizing the approaches we thought of and why we think it's not worth the effort + post the link to WG ML once it's ready Here it is: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Mizdebsk/FedoraMavenRepository

Re: Template for modules that use pbr?

- Original Message - Hi, I'm trying to update git-review to 1.24. With that version, git-review uses pbr. I have no deeper knowledge of Python packaging in Fedora and only tweaked the spec file so that it works for me (cf.

Re: python-sig in pkgdb2?

- Original Message - Hi all, there just was a request to test groups for pkgdb2 [1] and I thought it might be a good opportunity to maybe start sharing at least some core python packages among a few people. For instance, I maintain ipython and the dependency chain when other

Re: Idea: Ability to define dependencies between coprs (correctly)

- Original Message - Hi all, I have a proposal that would change how dependencies are defined in copr: Problem: Currently, copr allows to add a link to an arbitrary repo URL that is available for installing dependencies during building in copr. Using this dependent repo link we

Re: reproducible builds and python

- Original Message - Hi everyone! I've been doing some work towards reproducible builds in Fedora (mostly with various upstreams so far) and one of the elephants in the Room are obviously Pythons .pyc and .pyo files. As those contain the mtime of the original .py file, they might

Re: mock, megadeps and PyPI

- Original Message - - Original Message - From: Nick Coghlan ncogh...@redhat.com To: Fedora Python SIG python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 2:35:48 AM Subject: mock, megadeps and PyPI Jeff Fearn reminded me today of mock --megadeps, a

Re: Introducing Python 3.5 nightly builds for Fedora

- Original Message - On 07/03/2014 11:55 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote: Other than the packaging reasons: Fedora might attract Python enthusiasts and developers as it is most likely the only Linux distro that has development version of Python packaged nightly. Developers and powerusers

Re: Python 2.7 SSL upgrade patch available for testing

- Original Message - PEP 466 approved bring the core Python 2 network security infrastructure up to speed with the modern internet. Alex Gaynor has provided a draft patch of the most complex part of that PEP, backporting the bulk of the Python 3.4 SSL module to Python 2.7:

Re: request for pygrib packaging debug help

- Original Message - Hi everyone, I am having a small issue with the pygrib package that I am maintaining. The package depends on pyproj, but when I install it with yum it also pulls in python3-pyproj. All python3 related things are wrapped in %if 0%{?with_python3} macros, so this

Python 3.4 merged into Rawhide

Hi all, the f21-python side tag, containing Python 3.4, has been merged into Rawhide. We managed to rebuild 216 packages out of 452 that BR: python3-devel and 7 that BR: python3 - these were the packages (or dependencies of packages) that failed to build in my local mockchain build for some

Re: Python 3.4 merged into Rawhide

- Original Message - On 27.05.2014 16:14, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: Hi all, the f21-python side tag, containing Python 3.4, has been merged into Rawhide. I guess this is due to the merge: DEBUG util.py:282: Error: Package: python3-sip-4.15.5-1.fc21.x86_64 (build) DEBUG util.py

Re: Python 3.4 merged into Rawhide

- Original Message - All the other packages built fine for me locally, so the mass rebuild should get the job done for these. No, you cannot rely on the mass rebuild here. The reason is that the mass rebuild goes from a-z, in the alphabetical order and _not_ in the dependency

Re: Python 3 and mod_wsgi

- Original Message - I naively ported my Django app to Python 3 and didn't realize WSGI was going to be an issue. I saw python3-django was available for Fedora 20 and thought I was all set until I saw in my httpd logs that python2.7 seems to be the assumed default for mod_wsgi. After

Re: PEP453 // ensurepip // pip

- Original Message - I would say this one https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/1351 is important for us as packagers. It makes me nervous/upset and sad altogether :-). Awesome, well that’s on the list for 1.6 so that should be the next feature release of pip. Cool, thanks a lot!

Re: Python 3.4.0 final has been released

- Original Message - On 03/17/2014 05:53 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: Direct link to the What's New guide: http://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/3.4.html Thanks, Nick! Rereading that, I remembered there's more to it for Fedora than just hey, here's a shiny new version of Python 3 to be

Re: python packages versus pydoc -k

- Original Message - Sorry, I should have tried pdb first, because this one has nothing to do with rpm-python. I can see modname='PyQt4.uic.pyuic', and prior to the exception site is a line 'loader = importer.find_module(modname)', which is where the None came from. I can confirm

Summary/Minutes from today's Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2014-02-18)

= #fedora-meeting: Env and Stacks (2014-02-18) = Meeting started by bkabrda at 13:02:21 UTC. The full logs are available at

Re: Packages installing files to /etc/rpm

- Original Message - bkabrda python3 amcnabb,bkabrda,mstuchli,tomspur Fixed in python3-3.3.2-9.fc21 bkabrda python bkabrda,dmalcolm,ivazquez,jsteffan,mstuchli,tomspur,tradej Fixed in python-2.7.6-2.fc21 -- Regards, Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda. -- devel mailing list

Re: Meeting minutes Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2014-01-28)

ACTION: bkabrda will write more about devassistant (mmaslano, 16:44:20) I tried to rewrite the DevAssistant part to be more high-level and to also include information on what we should do with DevAssistant. Hope it's enough. Slavek. -- devel mailing list

Re: Meeting minutes Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2014-01-28)

- Original Message - On 4 February 2014 12:02, Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com wrote: I tried to rewrite the DevAssistant part to be more high-level and to also include information on what we should do with DevAssistant. Hope it's enough. Should DevAssistant and gnome software

Summary/Minutes from today's Env-and-Stacks WG Meeting (2014-02-04)

#fedora-meeting: Env and Stacks (2014-02-04) Meeting started by bkabrda at 13:03:24 UTC. The full logs are available at

Re: Python 3.4, ensurepip and wheels

- Original Message - On 12/12/2013 01:18 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: Well yeah, my point is that there is no upstream-acceptable way other than checking the file hashes by ensurepip, is there? If I wouldn't want to check file hashes, I'd have to query RPM for release

Meeting minutes - today's Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2013-12-10)

#fedora-meeting: Env and Stacks (2013-12-10) Meeting started by bkabrda at 13:02:36 UTC. The full logs are available at

Re: Python 3.4, ensurepip and wheels

- Original Message - On 11/28/2013 12:42 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: I hope I covered all the important points. Basically, we can make this work in a way acceptable for upstream, if we package setupttols and pip as wheels. It'll require some extra effort, but I think it's worth

Agenda for today's Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2013-12-10)

WG meeting will be today at 13:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting on Freenode. == Next Steps == - PRD - based on discussion on env-and-stacks mailing list (some discussion on pad: http://piratepad.net/PwUiH4MEPR) == Open Floor == -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposal for Python guidelines change (in connection to Python 3 switch)

- Original Message - On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 07:18:31AM -0500, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: - Original Message - Oh, I see. Some time ago, FPC has accepted a change that says, that packages with py in name should be prefixed with python- anyway [1]. Since this only applies

Re: Packaging Python 3.4.0

Update: - DONE: I've just created a copr repo for Python 3.4 [1] and built beta1 - IN PROGRESS: I'm now working on unbundling of pip and setuptools wheels, as mentioned in thread [2]. Progress: -- DONE: created python-wheels package for Fedora (I'll build it in copr ASAP) -- DONE: added logic to

Python 3.4, ensurepip and wheels

Hi all, so I started to work on packaging Python 3.4 beta 1 and I wanted to create ensurepip patch also acceptable for upstream - Toshio and Nick talked about that at [1]. I tried to analyze the situation and here is what I have. First some facts: - with ensurepip, Python 3.4 bundles setuptools

Re: Meeting minutes - today's Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2013-11-19)

* PRD (mmaslano, 16:19:29) * LINK: http://piratepad.net/PwUiH4MEPR (abadger1999, 17:04:53) * ACTION: everyone to send one general thing they want the WG to enable and one specific thing they'd personally want to work on to the mailing list this week (abadger1999, 17:37:44)

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2013-10-23)

- Original Message - -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/24/2013 02:45 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: * ticket #1182 F21/F22 System Wide Change: Python 3 as the Default Implementation - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python_3_as_Default (nirik, 18:10:29

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2013-10-23)

* ticket #1182 F21/F22 System Wide Change: Python 3 as the Default Implementation - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python_3_as_Default (nirik, 18:10:29) * AGREED: Feature is approved, provided that the contingency plan is updated with permitting a mixed environment of

Re: F21/F22 System Wide Change: Python 3 as the Default Implementation

- Original Message - On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 11:05:52PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 El Mon, 14 Oct 2013 02:19:15 -0400 (EDT) Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com escribió: - Original Message - -BEGIN PGP SIGNED

  1   2   >