On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 18:42 -0400, John Dennis wrote: > On 10/29/2009 06:27 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > > > I rather like the idea of standardizing on a "python3-" prefix for _all_ > > Python 3 module packages and subpackages, even if this leads to > > inconsistencies with their counterparts in the python 2 stack. It would > > make the "threeness" of the packages stand out more. > > > > Thoughts? > > Initially this sounds good to me. Because python 2 and python 3 are > incompatible it's probably important we separate them at the packaging > level, this seems like a good approach as any (even with some warts on > the corner cases). > > However package maintainers might not like the idea of having to > maintain double the number of their packages for an interim period and I > could see them wanting to have just one package that installs into both > the python2 and python3 library locations. Also perhaps we don't want to > inflate the number of python packages by 2x. Having not followed this > discussion from it's outset I'm wondering if we might want to consider > allowing a single python package to support both python versions. I'm > sure there are multiple reasons why this is a horrible idea, but I > thought I would throw it out for consideration and let it get shot down :-) My original proposal [1] was that python 3 should be entirely separate from python 2 As a trial run, I took a packaged python module and got it to build with python 3. See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531648 This is the separate-srpm approach, it would live as a separate package in CVS. As an experiment, I tried hacking up the same module's specfile so that one build generates both 2 and 3 subpackages. You can see the result here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531895 This approach requires the package to work with both python 2 and 3, which requires both an upstream maintainer and a downstream Fedora packager that care about both 2 and 3, working from a single source tree. For supporting both 2 and 3 with a single built RPM (or something involving symlinked .py files?) I don't think that's possible: we don't want to add a python3 dependency to python 2 modules, and the precompiled bytecode optimization of imports requires version-specific .pyc/.pyo files - see bug 531117 (automating this in rpmbuild) and bug 531102 (adding a test to rpmlint to verify that it got it correct). Dave [1] See: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-October/msg00054.html and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Python3F13 -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
