https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107403 Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, | |mhayden@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #2 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- There are a few issues with the packaging—obsolete practices and unnecessary workarounds—but I want to ask about: > Since version 3.0, this is Python 2 package only, Python 3.x SDKs will use PEP420 as namespace package strategy. To avoid issues with package servers that does not support python_requires, a Python 3 package is installed but is empty. It seems like this package doesn’t really do anything in Fedora, except providing python3dist(azure-nspkg). Is there something that depends on that explicitly, and if so, would it be better to just patch out the dependency in that package, since Fedora can rely on a modern Python and understands Python dependencies? If you confirm it makes sense to package this, can I ask if you are targeting EPEL7 or EPEL8 with the same spec file? Or just Fedora and maybe EPEL9? The answer would affect the advice about which obsolete practices to remove. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107403 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-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/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
