> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 01:02:32PM -0800, Troy Dawson wrote:
> I'll say it once again, but why can't we just have
> %{python2_available} and %{python3_available} macros defined in the
> base system?
And once again, what about %py3_build_expected? Proposed in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1636020
The most obvious argument against that is that it is not 100% bullet
proof to cover all Fedora Python packages. But I don't think it is
a problem in particular; there are _many_ (maybe the most of them)
python packages that could use this.
Pavel
_______________________________________________
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
