On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The reasoning for needing a python3-foobaz is that we don't replace
the python2 version of foobaz with a package which does not work at
all with the python2 installed and possibly breaks an existing app.
You seem to be talking about RPM names and not SRPM names. By convention, any Python 3 package for EPEL7 would actually be python34-package. The point of this thread is to discuss SRPM names and if python34-package can be built from a SPRM package named python-package like in Fedora. Since python2 and python3 packages are generally built from the same source and spec, the SRPM and Fedora Git repo are usually not versioned. The problem is when a python2 package exists in RHEL, but we want to supply a python34 package. The draft guidelines (which are the only ones we have) say this is a conflict, but it seems that is not stated anywhere in the EPEL guidelines. The main problem this creates is very few python34 packages get created because people don't want to maintain multiple repos for the same thing.
As far as the limited arch packages, I bring that up because it seems from the guidelines their SRPM name would be the same as the one in RHEL. If that is acceptable there, it likely should be for python packages.
Avram
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
