On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 11:13 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 29 June 2017 at 10:44, Iryna Shcherbina <ishcherb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Personally I think that going with py3 -> py at any time is going to > be a problem. Will there never be a python4 or python5? Will we just > leave that problem to repeat itself in 2028? when we have to do > another complete rename because python3 is EOL? Right, that's a good point. *Why* exactly do we want to go to all the trouble involved in making a switchover from 'python-foo' meaning 'the Python 2 module called foo' to meaning 'the Python 3 module called foo'? What is the actual benefit of this, as opposed to just deprecating unversioned Python package names and provides entirely? Wouldn't it be better to say that 'python-foo always means python2-foo, but it's deprecated and we should be gradually moving to provides and requires with the python major version number included in all packages'? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
