On 07. 05. 20 19:57, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Would it be needed if we moved from say python 3.6 to python 3.8?
If there is enough people going to work on this, python 3.8 can be introduced as
%python3_other.
But I guess python 3.6 is going to be maintained the entire life of
rhel7?
AFAIK
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 12:11:58PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 07. 05. 20 11:46, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> > Question: should I be using %{python3_pkgversion} at all? Some packages
> > still use it, e.g. python3-ply (python36-ply binary package), and
> > some don't.
>
> 0) It is
On 07. 05. 20 11:46, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
Question: should I be using %{python3_pkgversion} at all? Some packages
still use it, e.g. python3-ply (python36-ply binary package), and
some don't.
0) It is no longer required from technical point of view.
1) There was no
On Thursday, 07 May 2020 at 05:07, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 5/6/20 4:31 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 06. 05. 20 3:39, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> > > This is related to my breaking of various packages by dropping
> > > python34-six. Should we:
> > >
> > > - re-add python34-six
> >
> > For now,
On 07. 05. 20 5:07, Orion Poplawski wrote:
FWIW, leaves appear to be:
# repoquery --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=epel* --whatrequires python34 | while
read pkg; do [ -z "$(repoquery --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=epel*
--whatrequires $pkg --alldeps --recursive)" ] && echo $pkg; done
Not sure
On 5/6/20 4:31 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 06. 05. 20 3:39, Orion Poplawski wrote:
This is related to my breaking of various packages by dropping
python34-six. Should we:
- re-add python34-six
For now, yes please. This will need a big announcement and coordination,
in the meantime, users
On 06. 05. 20 3:39, Orion Poplawski wrote:
This is related to my breaking of various packages by dropping python34-six.
Should we:
- re-add python34-six
For now, yes please. This will need a big announcement and coordination, in the
meantime, users are impacted.
- Make an announcement
