On Thursday, January 18, 2018 6:11:31 PM CET Petr Viktorin 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.
Oxymoron? :-) Really, why we can not have macros updated? This case seems to
be worth it.
Pavel
> So, how about %{python2_missing} and %{python3_available}? Is that too
> ugly and inconsistent?
>
>
> --
> 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
