On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:15:34AM -0500, Dan Scott wrote: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I've just published a blogpost that summarizes what's going on with Python > > 3 as default in Fedora. > > > > You can find it here: > > > > http://eng.hroncok.cz/2014/02/12/python3-fedora-default/ > > > > Feel free to post any comments on my blog or here on the mailing list(s) > > > Basic process question: do existing packages that currently offer only > Python 2 support, but for which upstream has subsequently added Python 3 > compatibility, follow the normal new package / full review process if > you're adding Python 3 support as a subpackage to the existing spec file? > (I'm working on python-rdflib at the moment, which fits this criteria). No, they don't. There's no mandate to do a full review when new subpackages are added, and Python 3 packages are not treated differently here. And there's really no need to in the case of Python 3 subpackages: they are usually rather mundane duplicates of their Python 2 counterparts with some paths changes. Zbyszek > I would assume so, but didn't find an explicit statement one way or another > in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python . As I suspect this will > be a common case with a push for Python 3 as default, I'll be happy to add > a corresponding statement to that page. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
