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 --- Comment #8 from Andrew McNabb <amcnabb@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-13 17:26:22 EDT --- Dave, thank you very much for your insightful thoughts. I agree with you on almost all points. The important thing for me is getting a working RPM that can be installed alongside Python 2. As you noticed, a lot of things in my specfile exist purely to be similar to Python 2 (although I changed anything that seemed wrong or inapplicable). I wouldn't have any hard feelings over which specfile is used. However, there are some areas where I think mine is more "right" and other areas where I think ivazquez's is probably better. Obviously, we should want to combine the best of both. Here are a few specific thoughts: 1) I think that the name python3 is clearly preferable to python3000. 2) I'm confused by the .list thing. The .list files are really short, and I don't see how they make it any more clear. In fact, I think they make the specfile more difficult to read. Is this a standard way to do things? 3) The patch python-3.1.1-config.patch follows the approach of Python 2. This is really important (whoever did Python 2 really knew what they were doing). Python's default build configuration (without the patch applied) will fail silently if a module can't be built. This is really evil. It means that if a dependency is missing, then files will just disappear. This patch gets rid of silent failures by explicitly specifying which modules must be built. 4) The patch python-3.1.1-lib64.patch ensures that Python is installed into /usr/lib64 (as per Fedora's packaging guidelines). It looks like the python3000 specfile does the same work with sed instead of a patch. I don't know which approach is better, and I could be easily persuaded either way. I picked to make a patch to more closely match the Python 2 specfile, but I can definitely see some advantages to using sed. 5) I have no strong feelings on the package description or build dependencies. However, I don't get the disparaging remarks about Tkinter. Not that I have any attachment to Tkinter, but I'm not aware of it being considered in any way deprecated. 6) The configure option --with-wide-unicode seems to be the correct spelling for the option, where --enable-unicode=ucs4 is the old way to say it. 7) By the way, the python3000 package defines a python3000-libs subpackage, but the python3 package just includes the .so file in the main package. When I tried to have a python3-libs package, it ended up being a prerequisite for python3 anyway, so I couldn't see the point in keeping it separate. However, it's entirely possible that I did something wrong to make this happen. :) ivazquez, do you have any thoughts on these issues? Is there any particular reason that you didn't submit your package for review? Thanks for your work! -- 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