-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 David Malcolm wrote: > "Naming convention" proposal: > How does this sound: > - an rpm with a "python-" prefix means a python 2 rpm, of the > "default" python 2 minor version (for Fedora this will be the most > recent stable upstream minor release, for EPEL it will be the minor > release of 2 that came with the distro, so 2.4 for EPEL5) > > - an rpm with a "python3-" prefix means a python 3 rpm, of the > "default" python 3 minor version (for Fedora this will be the most > recent stable upstream release) > > (we could extend this to have specific minor-releases (e.g. use > "python24-" for a python 2.4 stack, in case some brave soul wants to get > zope/plone running. But may be better to try to fix the zope/2.6 > incompatibility at that point (caveat: haven't looked at the details of > the issue). I don't intend to work on such versions)) > > What about packages without a "python-" prefix? Proposal: If upstream > has a naming convention for python2 vs python3, use it. Otherwise, add > a "python3-" prefix to make things clear. I'm not sure about the > details here. Examples? > > There have been various discussions upstream about what to call the > python 3 binary. My favorite quote on the subject is from Guido, > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008- March/012421.html : >> During the next 3 years or so, installing Py3k as the default "python" >> will be a deed of utter irresponsibility and is likely to break your >> system in subtle ways (both OSX and Linux these days use Python for >> certain system tasks). If you *really* want to shoot yourself in the >> foot this way, go ahead and explicitly use "make altinstall >> bininstall" or link it yourself. > > I propose that for Fedora we have "/usr/bin/python3" for the > system/default version of python 3 and "/usr/bin/python" for the > system/default version of python 2. Both would be symlinks to a binary > with the minor-release embedded in the name ("/usr/bin/python3.1" and > "/usr/bin/python/2.6"). > > As I understand things, this should make us broadly in agreement with > upstream; see e.g.: > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009- April/088862.html > http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009- April/088884.html Could we do something similar to what qt and kdelibs packages have done? While qt3 was default, the 'qt' package points to qt3 and qt4 is an entirely separate package. When qt4 became default, qt3 was the one with the explicit version on it (and qt4 still exists, but the default 'qt' is qt4 now). This would mean that python2 packages grow 'Provides: python2-foo = %{version}-%{release}'. When python3 is the default, then have python point to python3 (and we can drop the Provides/Obsoletes for python3- prefixed packages later if wanted). My thought process is that I would not like, after python3 is the default, to still have to put the explicit 3 on there because python is still python2. Just thinking ahead here. - --Ben -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJKxTdfAAoJEKaxavVX4C1Xdf0QANdjkM1iZhZfnxSLErl8qsrr Eqhg51xTZdolE/8/Z08DTxE3EF5yj5BsfGPgTfiyTgzqiFgMYpAxU6NYKRZI0WmL C3eC8oHMINRJGotklzHZiTnyUbZd2MZQuPWhMljOchOGOTktT9oaXZND/co1Aixo xNVqXLYQAYWAlF0A0fjVJ12x2eq4jcG8d2rDaOmiXMj4UTI1ZfVFyofBHm++4hUB dQ6JNrN11Tzd7fOnGZKvLUgvfEOXlP8K51dFKiaZI+iBxvU14GnU4e7p3ri4CEjT CKk8AzSKkwLcKk8ipCwN3+BvLCMvq91RtBoh1amhevCg2FgULnbe2ZWv9qhZkpJg EG4HVCbhXgeMvIbX6prGMtcDAe4X8QNesMX2C7OCqwwkFDea9qSNCb7ZLVscGCZQ OeRKfgD7DN1XnH/6F2a6p5lxNQF6EQ0G7oWjloSwWtOCNLTU+pDI1waTPM74yh/Y 1sabs31wYUi+gbW3sFqfWoMnkAisKRLXeKzxsZvotz4R87+GEwoV1ZZJNL+NWvZz V+IGhU+B6PTu8Jo6KfV2xJ6Y0kx8qKSlk9LdiZ9RKTyxgnZVaxj3YJceeUv1TSI/ U8xVwEjcMxDdink2NBlyGkd+its4+9ZlShHLMOKdYIAnibov72WlMLKXYNr8plpO kQYYB0B/z9A1fXFxNqKu =dgBR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
