On 18.1.2018 19:16, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 12:12 PM Petr Viktorin <pviktori@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:pviktori@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:On 01/17/2018 12:38 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 01:02:32PM -0800, Troy Dawson wrote: >> Hello, >> Python3 will be in the next major RHEL release. I don't mean RHEL >> 7.6, but with numbers higher than 7. >> There are many, many packages with something like the following >> >> if 0%{?fedora} >> %define with_python3 1 >> %endif >> >> If you have something like that, please change it to something like this. >> >> if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} > 7 >> %define with_python3 1 >> %endif > > I'll say it once again, but why can't we just have > %{python2_available} and %{python3_available} macros defined in the > base system? Mostly because we can't change RHEL. So, how about %{python2_missing} and %{python3_available}? Is that too ugly and inconsistent?We don't need to change RHEL. We just need to add %{python2_available} to the epel-srpm-macros package. Or am I missing something? Yes, this will only work for packages built against EPEL 7 and not for third-party build-systems, but that's not something we have to care about, is it?
Well there's python3 and python2 available in all EPEL versions and all Fedora versions.
Once there is a new EPEL version out there, it is very likely both pythons will be available there as well.
What am I missing? -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
