On 06/29/2017 12:09 PM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
On to, 29 kesä 2017, Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 06/29/2017 11:12 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 2:39 AM, Adam Williamson
<adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 16:21 +0200, Iryna Shcherbina wrote:
2) Using `python-` instead of `python2-` in the dependencies for the
Python 2 binary RPM [2].
I'm not sure this list is terribly useful, because of the above. There
are thousands of packages that do this, because the 'python2-' provide
is not available on some older Fedora release, or on EPEL (and the
package is maintained for EPEL as well as Fedora). Sprinkling "if
(some
release number condition) then Requires: python2-foo else Requires:
python-foo" all over your spec is a giant PITA and I for one am not
very interested in doing it.
IMHO, if there is going to be some kind of requirement that all Python
requires be explicitly versioned, there needs to be a co-ordinated
effort to make sure the versioned Provides are available across at
least EL6, EL7, and all supported Fedora releases *first*.
I completely agree with Adam's sentiment here and think this is a
giant waste of time for a little bit of vanity. It's prone to errors.
I've seen and fixed numerous issues where maintainers just blanket
change/build/push without doing proper provides/obsoletes and break
things on stable releases and EL.
Most packagers have enough problems with workload without piling on a
bunch of extra unnecessary vanity bollocks that provides absolutely
ZERO value.
Sorry that all this looks useless to you!
Let me try to explain the situation:
Python 2.7 has 10-year upstream support. That's as much as enterprise
Linux distributions, but coming from a community of volunteers, who
are getting tired and want to move on.
That support will end in 2020. That's when the current Fedora
maintainers of Python 2.7 plan to orphan it.
Since lots of packages Fedora depend on Python, we want to make sure
these packages have:
- fair warning that py2 is going away
- a chance to move over as gracefully as possible.
You're free to not act on these warnings and suggestions -- all
that'll happen is your package will have a missing dependency in a
few years.
What would happen in a few years when you changed your dependency to be
an explicit py2 one? Your package would stop building either, right?
Why would it stop building?
By explicitly defining the dependency to be py2 one in your Python 2
package, you will just make sure it will not start pulling Python 3
dependencies in a few years when the switch happens.
So what is the real difference in the effort in few years and now?
If you have a better way to manage this, please let us know!
--
Petr Viktorin
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
