Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526126 Dave Malcolm <dmalcolm@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ivazqueznet@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #7 from Dave Malcolm <dmalcolm@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-13 16:48:29 EDT --- Adding ivazquez to the CC list. Ignacio: I hope that's OK. Andrew: thanks for your work on packaging Python 3 I feel a little awkward about reviewing this. As far as I can see based on the link in comment #3, ivazquez has been packaging Python 3000 since 2007-09-01, with "3.0-0.a1.1": Sat Sep 1 2007 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet+rpm@xxxxxxxxx> 3.0-0.a1.1 and he's been steadily updating his rpms since then. However, I don't think he ever filed a package review request on those rpms. (Please correct me if I'm wrong!) Ignacio: is there a reason you didn't file a review request? I've posted a proposal on Python 3 in Fedora 13. See this proposed feature page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Python3F13 I'm very keen to see a python 3 package in Fedora, either based on Andrew's srpm, or on Ignacio's. I also tried packaging it, but I'm happy to abandon my specfile in favor of your work. I would like to be a comaintainer of the resulting package. For me, the most important thing is that the python 3 rpms should be installable in parallel with the python 2 rpms. I hope I captured the other kinds of expected behavior on the feature page above. I'd be happy to review your package (though we need to find a sponsor for you), but I'm worried that Ignacio may feel put out if we use your package rather than his (and likewise, vice versa). I'm curious why Ignacio never filed a package review request on his packages. Thoughts? I tried generating a pure textual "diff" of the two specfiles (Andrew's vs Ignacio's), but too much is different for the result to be meaningful. So I tried comparing individual aspects of the packaging (no doubt omitting much): = Name = "python3" vs "python3000" I prefer "python3"; I feel that "python 3000" was a good development codename during the development towards 3.0, but now that it's been released, "3" seems to be the name. I'd prefer us to use "python3-" as a naming prefix throughout. = Source and Patches = ivazquez's srpm makes use of various ".list" source files to control various parts of the build/install/etc, and I think this approach works well. amcnabb's patches: Patch0: python-3.1.1-config.patch This heavily patches Modules/Setup.dist, like we do on the python 2 rpm. I haven't gone though and checked the various modules in detail yet, but it looks reasonable, a "batteries-included" approach. Patch102: python-3.1.1-lib64.patch It's only applied on 64-bit archs; it reworks lib to lib64 in many places. # http://bugs.python.org/issue6999 -- fixed in r75062 Patch200: python-3.1.1-pathfix.patch Fixes an encoding issue with the pathfix script, used when fixing up shebangs. Good to see that you upstreamed it. ivazquez's patches: Patch0: Python-3.1.1-rpath.patch Removes standard library path from rpath. Patch1: Python-3.0a5-libprep.patch Ignacio's version fix up the shebangs uses sed (see "sedcmd" in the specfile), rather than fixing the broken "pathfix" tool. = BuildRequires = Both have BuildRequires on: bzip2-devel db4-devel (amcnabb's has a ">= 4.7" here) gdbm-devel openssl-devel ncurses-devel readline-devel sqlite-devel tk-devel (alphabetized them for ease of comparison) amcnabb's has an additional: BuildRequires: gmp-devel BuildRequires: zlib-devel, expat-devel BuildRequires: libGL-devel tk tix gcc-c++ libX11-devel glibc-devel BuildRequires: bzip2 tar /usr/bin/find pkgconfig tcl-devel BuildRequires: tix-devel BuildRequires: autoconf BuildRequires: libffi-devel Some of these are implicitly assumed in the buildroot, and don't need to be explicitly listed. The others presumably reflect the very broad batteries-included approach taken when patching Modules/Setup.dist ivazquez's has an additional: BuildRequires: gdbm-devel BuildRequires: python = Description = amcnabb's seems to be taken directly from our python 2 specfile; I think the one in ivazquez's specfile is better (although as I said, I feel we should refer to Python 3 not to Python 3000). In particular, the description in ivazquez' specfile deprecates the use of TkInter, which I think is wise advice! = Subpacakages = amcnabb's specfile has a -test subpackage, whereas ivazquez's is -tests. Our python 2 specfile uses the singular form, so perhaps we should use the singular form for consistency (also, the main component of it is the "Lib/test" directory from the upstream tarball, again a singular) = Configuration = Both specfiles have %configure with: --enable-ipv6 --enable-shared amcnabb's adds: --with-wide-unicode --with-system-ffi ivazquez's adds: --enable-unicode=ucs4 I definitely want us to have "--with-system-ffi" I hope that's a useful start on reviewing this. Should I begin a formal package review of Andrew's package? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review