On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 02:13:03AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:52 AM Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 08:52:02PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > > ...snip... > > > > > > I see that the ansible SRPM in rawhide has already discarded any > > > support for python2, so that cannot be easily backported to RHEL 7 > > > with continuing use of python2. Our friends doing EPEL support will > > > have to either do considerable work to continue python2 support, say > > > with "pyp2rpm", or cooperate with the switch to python3. > > > > The epel7 ansible (classic/2.9) builds both python2 and python2 > > versions, you can use whatever one you prefer. The epel7 branch has just > > diverged from rawhide. It's also as up to date as rawhide is version > > wise. > > Exactly. It's had to be diverged. And they're not identical versions, > epel7 has 2.9.21, and Fedora 34 has 2.9.23. Both git branches should have the same version? Where do you see 2.9.21? > > I guess I don't understand what your concern is here... if we required > > rawhide to build for all targets, why do we have branches at all? > > I'm suggesting that we avoid making things more difficult if we don't need to. But we did need to. One spec file that works for epel7/epel8/fedora when we were switching fedora to python3 and some versions had python2 and some python3 and some both and some couldn't build docs due to some package versions and some had to exclude some tests due to some versions became too complex. It was much easier and clearer to diverge branches and only have the needed items for each branch. > > To me it's a balancing act... some level of conditional is worth it to > > allow rawhide's spec to work on other branches, but when it reaches a > > level where it's confusing, it's better to break the relationship and > > let branches diverge to handle their branch/target only. > > Sure. I'm suggesting that there is a risk and difficulty to abandoning > python2-setuptools. I'm still not sure I follow why you think so. If epel branches still use/need it, maintainers can either add conditionals and share a spec file or diverge branches if they need to. Either way, the issue is solved? kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
