On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 19:12 -0400, Ben Boeckel wrote: > -----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. Thanks! If I'm correctly reading your mail, this approach is one I did think of, but I'm not fond of it. I think that anyone dealing with Python is going to have to be thinking "is this python 2 or python 3" for some years to come, so having an explicit "python3-" prefix is probably not too painful. What I think would be painful in your suggestion is the flag day where we'd change the meaning of "python-" in RPM names. Currently in Fedora and EPEL, "python-" implies the system-supplied minor release of python 2, be it in Fedora (2.6), or in EPEL (2.4). I worry that changing it to imply the system-supplied minor release of Python 3 (3.1, or 3.2/3.3? by that point) would be thoroughly confusing, since we'd have to update everything all at once. It wouldn't fly within EPEL, since the pre-existing Enterprise downstreams of Fedora aren't going to change (far too disruptive). One middle ground might be to start using "python2-" explicitly for _new_ packages. That wouldn't break anything, but could easily be confusing as well. I think I prefer keeping things consistent. Perhaps at some point we could cut over "/usr/bin/python" from being Python 2 to Python 3, but I refer you again to this quote from Guido: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-3000/2008-March/012421.html (The other fun thing to do might be to package Unladen Swallow. Not at all sure what to call _that_ though!) Dave -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
