Re: Python macro backports for EPEL reviews needed

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 8:30 AM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 14. 04. 20 15:56, Troy Dawson wrote:
> > Hi Miro,
> > I've taken a look, but haven't done any testing.
>
> Thanks.
>
> > EPEL6 patch - no.  Even if it works, I'd say no.  We're at the last 7
> > months before EOL and I don't want the EPEL6 stuff to have changes
> > like this.  I could be outvoted by this, but I believe most of the
> > other EPEL packagers would feel this way.
>
> Makes perfect sense.
>
> > EPEL7 patch - This would require some testing.  When we tried to turn
> > on the python automatic-dependency checking, there were things that
> > broke on EPEL7 so they never got implemented.  What, or how they
> > broke, I don't currently know.  I just know that they did, and there
> > wasn't a big enough demand to debug.  As in zero demand.  Nobody asked
> > for it in EPEL7, only EPEL8.  So I'm not even sure this would be worth
> > the testing.  Has anyone asked for this?
>
> Not yet. But If we want packagers to start using %pycached, I know there are
> some of them who would blindly merge their master branch to epel7 and they
> expect it will work. I suggest that we backport %pycached only, the name is
> unlikely to clash with anything. %python can be separated and not backported.
> Sounds good?
>

Yep, sounds good to me.

> > EPEL8 patch - We've had requests to have EPEL8 be as close to Fedora,
> > so I'm in favor of this.
> > I'm pretty sure the %pycached shouldn't be a problem.
>
> I agree.
>
> > What is %python supposed to resolve to?  To me it looks like
> > /usr/bin/python ... which there isn't any in RHEL8.  And, I thought
> > Fedora got rid of it also, in favor of specifically doing python2 or
> > python3.  Or did that change?
>
> So the main idea was that based on some FPC and RPMdevs discussions about
> underscor-prefixed macros, packagers should not be using those directly, however
> our guidelines were full of referecens to %{__python3}. We have come up with a
> conclusion:
>
> Macros with underscores, such as %__python3 are intended to be reset to change
> bahvior of other macros (e.g. when you set %__python to /usr/bin/pythhon3.4 on
> EPEL 7, %{python3_version{ will be 3.4), macros without underscores are to be
> used in specs (e.g. you do `%{python3} -m pytest` rather than `%{__python3} -m
> pytest`.
>
> Details:
> https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/907
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rpm-macros/pull-request/27#comment-30941
>
> The only problem was the %{python} macro. When you redefine %__python to a sane
> (explicit) value, you want %{python} to work, because e.g. %{python_version}
> works. But we didn't want to encourage usage of "unversioned python" by adding
> %{python}.
>
> So Fedora now has a %{python} macro: If %__python is /usr/bin/python (backwards
> compatible default), %{python} gives you an error. If %__python is anything
> else, %{python} gives that to you.
>
> Fedora 32:
>
> $ rpm --define '__python /usr/bin/python3.6' --eval '%python_version'
> 3.6
>
> $ rpm --define '__python /usr/bin/python3.6' --eval '%python'
> /usr/bin/python3.6
>
> $ rpm --eval '%python_version'
> 3.8
>
> $ rpm --eval '%python'
> error: Cannot use %python if %__python wasn't redefined to something other than
> /usr/bin/python.
>
>
> EPEL 8:
>
> $ rpm --define '__python /usr/bin/python3.6' --eval '%python_version'
> 3.6
>
> $ rpm --define '__python /usr/bin/python3.6' --eval '%python'
> %python
>
> $ rpm --eval '%python_version'
> error: attempt to use unversioned python, define %__python to /usr/bin/python2
> or /usr/bin/python3 explicitly
>
> $ rpm --eval '%python'
> %python
>
>

Ahh ... now that you explain it, I was reading it totally backwards.
I'd still like to test it on a variety of packages, but unless others
have some type of objection, as long as it passes the tests, I'm good
with it.

> --
> Miro Hrončok
> --
> Phone: +420777974800
> IRC: mhroncok
>
_______________________________________________
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora News]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [SSH]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora QA]     [Fedora Triage]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Apps]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Maemo Users]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Fedora Universal Network Connector]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux