Good numbers to provide, thanks. I've one thought for you. On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:24 PM, R P Herrold <herrold@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I did not try to structure and run a report to try to > enumerate and count by dependencies. Looking at the > problem with such a statistic, as to 'upstream' 'keystone' > packages will, I suspect, show that many of the dependencies > almost certainly 'cluster around a few 'branch' packages > > -- Russ herrold Numbers of dependencies are useful to report. I'd also expect "hot spots" around packages that are simply incompatible with python 3, or incompatible with python 2, due to the syntax differences between the languages. That's not going to be solvable by merely updating .spec files. Hmm. Has anyone take a look at the "bdist_rpms" python tools, used by Python developers to build RPMS from their raw python code, to bring it up to Fedora standards? Or py2pack? Getting those updated could help.authors of new smf p;f python tools. follow new standards. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/FTDGH4CVNQQNDCAW663F2CCTF6OBC6ZO/
