https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295127 --- Comment #9 from Fabio Alessandro Locati <fabio@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #8) > (In reply to Fabio Alessandro Locati from comment #6) > > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #5) > > > (In reply to Fabio Alessandro Locati from comment #4) > > > > 2. This package does not provide any library, only binaries so (as for > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Executables_in_.2Fusr.2Fbin, > > > > "If the executables provide the same functionality independent of whether > > > > they are run on top of Python 2 or Python 3, t/var/lib/mock/fedora-23-x86_64/resulthen only one version of the > > > > executable should be packaged.") I think only one version should be packaged > > > > > > > > 3. See point 2 > > > > > > I'm not totally sure; I'm not a Python expert, but I see awcli file in > > > /usr/bin as is made with your package contains a Python3 shebang (indeed, > > > your package builds only a Python3 awscli in Fedora). > > > > > > When you will split awscli in python2-awscli and python3-awscli, it will > > > need two different awscli in /usr/bin, one for Python2 and one for Python3. > > > > This would never happens as for specifics. > > If you think about it, there a multiple softwares like ansible, dnf and so > > on that are written in python and could (potentially) be compiled as py2 and > > py3 binaries, but it does not mak any sense from a Fedora infrastructure > > since the user can care less if the program that is using is executed by py2 > > or py3 (and probably does not know and care if it is a python, perl, c, > > assemply program as well). > > As for the package naming, it's the same case. In fact the ansible package > > is called simply "ansible" (and not python2-ansible) as well as dnf is "dnf" > > (and not python3-dnf), yum is "yum" (and not python2-yum) and so one. > > > > Therefore do you prefer to use only a Python3 AWSCLI on Fedora and only > Python2 AWSCLI on rhel6/7? Yes > Did you noted that DNF (you taken DNF as reference) is split in Python2/3 > and makes a symbolic link of unversioned '/usr/bin/dnf' respectively to > dnf-2 (python2) and dnf-3 (python3)? > It's use Python2 DNF on Fedora<23 and Python3 DNF on Fedora>=23 but provides > a 'dnf' package and 'python2-dnf' + 'python3-dnf' required sub-packages > anyway. True, from what I read from the mailinglist (https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2014-December/010360.html) the DNF thing is mainling caused by compatibility reasons needed by the fact that dnf entered Fedora before there was the policy change. Since awscli has never been in Fedora I think the legacy approach would not be necessary. > > > > > > > > 4. Technically, AWSCLI does not require bash nor zsh so they should not be a > > > > dependency. Those helpers are used only if AWSCLI is used with BASH or ZSH. > > > > This is a common thing in fact even if you do not have zsh installed (as in > > > > my computer) that folder is present > > > > > > > > > > They may be packaged separately so, as 'awscli-bash-completion' and > > > 'awscli-zsh'. > > > > If you take the dnf package as an example > > (pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/dnf.git/tree/dnf.spec) they just > > recommended the installation of bash-completion in line 84. Other packages > > (like fedpkg > > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/fedpkg.git/tree/fedpkg.spec) don't > > bother of recommend any bash-completion line. > > Now, I don't know what would be the best way to approach this (it's my first > > time with this those bash completion things and I have not found any > > documentation) so I would think that the DNF approach is the more "safe" > > since a recommend is not a hard requirement but it's still a notice. > > > > You can manage them at your discretion; in my opinion, you can package them > separately. See also http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:WeakDependencies Thanks for the link :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review