On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:22:14 -0400 Neal Becker wrote: > Thomas Spura wrote: > > > On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 08:36:23 -0400 > > Neal Becker wrote: > > > >> I have started porting to python3. So far I have a patch for > >> fpconst. I have not so far been able to contact upstream. > >> > >> Maybe we should start a SIG for this? > >> > > > >>From time to time, I try to enable a python3 subpackage and open a > >>bug, > > so the original maintainer accept that change to the package. > > If upstream released an extra python3 package, I sometimes package > > that and get it in fedora. > > > > I don't think we need a python3 SIG for that. Isn't the python SIG > > enought? ;-) > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Python > > > > Going forward, we should expect the current fedora packagers to > provide python3 versions? So bug reports (patches for python3) for > fedora python packages should be directed to the respective > maintainers? > It depends on the respective upstream, some upstreams release two different tar balls for python2 and python3 (e.g. chardet). Then we need two different packages, if not it's possible to do it in one spec. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Common_SRPM_vs_split_SRPMs But if the maintainer of the python2 package hesitates to build a python3 package and you want one, you cannot force him to do so... Then I don't see another way, than submit a new package review request for the python3 package. So to answer your question: I don't 'expect' the current fedora packagers to provide python3 versions, but I 'hope' they do so... In your case, you still need to try to contact upstream, or you are doing a fork (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Subpackages). -- Thomas Spura -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
