> most of the packages I've seen lack the python3_other bits (no > statistics, just my impression).
That's my impression too. > Is this something we want? If so, are the packagers willing to adapt > their packages (as much as I'd like to do this, I lack the resources to > hack on 228 packages)? I've done quite a few but it's in the tens, not the hundreds. However, winter is coming and it's a nice activity when you're down with the flu. I've noticed that the with_python3_other variable isn't defined in the file shipped by python3-rpm-macros, it would help transition to set that variable as in the original plan. The edits I've done use that variable as a conditional. Or shouldn't they? I'm interesting in having more python3.6 packages in EPEL7 since newer releases of Mailman3 requires Python >= 3.5, so I'm currently stuck by some missing dependencies. So I'm willing to help move this forward. Aurélien _______________________________________________ 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://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
