On 29 March 2018 at 14:43, Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Sérgio Basto wrote: > >> On Tue, 2018-03-27 at 13:46 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: >>> Sérgio Basto wrote: >>> >>> > On Tue, 2018-03-27 at 11:53 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: >>> > > Sérgio Basto wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > On Mon, 2018-03-26 at 15:33 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: >>> > > > > Sérgio Basto wrote: >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > On Tue, 2018-03-06 at 16:15 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: >>> > > > > > > I'd be ok with an epel7-only python3-sip >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Since it is a new package (not a branch of an existing >>> > > > > > > one), >>> > > > > > > then >>> > > > > > > it >>> > > > > > > would require a new package review. >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > It would be a bit of shame though, having to fork things >>> > > > > > > like >>> > > > > > > that. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > I tried this solution (epel7-only python3-sip) but >>> > > > > > BUILDSTDERR: Error: This version of PyQt5 requires sip >>> > > > > > 4.19.4 >>> > > > > > or >>> > > > > > later. >>> > > > > > when el7 have sip-devel x86_64 4.14.6- >>> > > > > > 4.el7 base >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > if we do package sip-qt5 we must override >>> > > > > > /usr/lib64/python2.7/site- >>> > > > > > packages/sip.so >>> > > > > > it is possible sip-qt5 provides and obsolete sip (4.14.6- >>> > > > > > 4.el7) >>> > > > > > ? >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Not possible (by policy). It should be able to work without >>> > > > > doing >>> > > > > that, but >>> > > > > it may require patching. >>> > > > >>> > > > I don't see how. In python2, how "import sip" will work ? >>> > > > "import >>> > > > sip-qt5 >>> > > > as sip" ? >>> > > >>> > > I thought the context here was your desire to add *only python3* >>> > > sip/python- >>> > > qt5 to epel ? >>> > >>> > That was if pyhton2-sip was enough , but sip 4.14.6 is not enough >>> > for >>> > python2-qt5-devel ... >>> > >>> > But thinking, we might only build python3-qt5 ? ok, let me review >>> > this again , seems enough for my openshot and subdownloader .... >>> >>> Yes, that's really the only viable option here, to do *only* python3- >>> sip and >>> python3-qt5 >> >> Done, sip : >> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/sergiomb/rpms/sip/c/84b5266e6d36d6e20c23bafe4da429fa0b98e0de?branch=master >> >> and python3-qt5: >> https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/sergiomb/rpms/python-qt5/commits/master >> >> >> As a note python34-sip-devel and sip-devel (pyhton2 version) can't be >> installed at same time [1] but it is correct, we can only have one >> macros.sip in the system , is it a problem ? So can we do branches of sip >> and python-qt5 for epel-7 using the same packages but just build python3 >> part ? > > Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's not allowed by policy. > The base package names (the src.rpm used to produce these) would conflict > with that of core rhel packages. If that's true, then we'll need new > packages with non-conflicting names, using something like: > python3-sip > python3-qt5 > > Yes. I believe this will cause problems with how koji builds packages and decides what will be used in buildchains for any related packages. > _______________________________________________ > epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
