Thank you, Robert. It makes perfect sense. I'll fix my packages.
Cheers,
Jan
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Robert Kuska <rkuska@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Jan Včelák" <jvcelak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 12:40:47 PM
>> Subject: Re: Python naming guidelines clarification
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>> > Yes, the guidelines apply to the source rpm name too. Those
>> > srpms should be called python-*, because they contain python libries.
>>
>> OK. Thank you.
>>
>> And what is the best current practice if the library contains some
>> utilities. Should the utilities land in the python{2,3}-name package?
>> Should it land in both?
>>
>> To give you an example, the ripe.atlas.sagan ships a utility
>> parse_abuf. I'm currently removing it from the package as the upstream
>> is going to deprecate it with the next release. But theoretically,
>> should the utility be included in python2-ripe-atlas-sagan as
>> parse_abuf2 and in python3-ripe-atlas-sagan as parse_abuf? Or would it
>> be better for instance to create a package ripe-atlas-sagan which will
>> contain just the Python 3 version of the utility?
>>
>
> As I suggested in my email before, package just one version running on
> Python3 (if supported) when utility provides same functionality whether run
> with Python3 or Python2.
>
> There are special cases when you have to provide bin files for both major
> versions of python, good example is python-pip (python3-pip installs python3
> modules, python2-pip installs python2 modules).
>
> Here are conventions for naming executables and some mentions about
> Python2/Python3 executables conflicts:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Naming
>
> I believe that your confusion (you are not alone) is caused by misleading
> example specfile in python packaging guidelines and lack of verbosity
> about such cases, I already tried to argue about changing it
> https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/558#comment:6
>
>
>
> Lets assume python project named `example` which ships executable `example`:
>
> 1. `example` is pure application, supports Python3 -
> I package it as `example` with executable `example` running on Python3, all
> backend libraries will be also packaged under `example` rpm as they are not meant
> to be used as libraries in other projects
>
> 2. `example` is application and it also ships libraries which may be used in
> other projects -
> I package it as `example` which will ship executable `example` running on Python3,
> I will build it for both Python2 and Python3 and package its libraries under
> python2-example and python3-example, (hence `example` will require `python3-example`)
>
> 3. `example` is application with different behaviour for both major python versions -
> I package `example` as `python-example` with `python2-example` and `python3-example`
> subpackages carrying both backends libraries and executables, unversioned executable
> `example` will be packaged under `python2-example` (hence running on python2).
>
> I hope it makes sense :)
>
>> Jan
>> --
>> devel mailing list
>> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> --
> Robert Kuska
> {rkuska}
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
