[EPEL-devel] Re: "python3" vs "python%{python3_pkgversion}"
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 7:04 PM Miro Hrončok 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 wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:34 PM Ken Dreyer 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 -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
[EPEL-devel] Re: "python3" vs "python%{python3_pkgversion}"
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 wrote:
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:34 PM Ken Dreyer 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.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
[EPEL-devel] Re: "python3" vs "python%{python3_pkgversion}"
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 wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:34 PM Ken Dreyer 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.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
[EPEL-devel] Re: "python3" vs "python%{python3_pkgversion}"
On 02. 12. 19 23:09, Ken Dreyer wrote:
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 11:47 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:34 PM Ken Dreyer 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
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
[EPEL-devel] Re: "python3" vs "python%{python3_pkgversion}"
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 11:47 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:34 PM Ken Dreyer 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?
- Ken
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
[EPEL-devel] Re: Packaging guidelines
I believe the answer is "yes" ... to both. As far as I know, there aren't any differences. Where there are differences, we're trying to get rid of the differences. Example is that the automatic python dependencies weren't turned on in epel8. That should be fixed in a few days, so you should be able to use your fedora python specs in epel8. But, it would probably be good to update that page and say that there aren't any differences. On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 9:40 AM Mattia Verga wrote: > > There used to be some differences between Fedora and EPEL packaging > guidelines, which were explained in the docs [1]. > I don't find any mention in that doc to EPEL8, does that mean there aren't > any differences or that the page isn't updated for EPEL8? > > Mattia > > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging > ___ > epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
[EPEL-devel] Re: "python3" vs "python%{python3_pkgversion}"
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:34 PM Ken Dreyer 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.
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
[EPEL-devel] "python3" vs "python%{python3_pkgversion}"
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" ?
- Ken
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
[EPEL-devel] Packaging guidelines
There used to be some differences between Fedora and EPEL packaging guidelines, which were explained in the docs [1]. I don't find any mention in that doc to EPEL8, does that mean there aren't any differences or that the page isn't updated for EPEL8? Mattia [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
