On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Timeframewise, we're most likely going to want to switch programs over toOn Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 01:34:14PM +0100, Thomas Spura wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Bohuslav Kabrda <bkabrda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > Dne 4.12.2013 12:37, Bohuslav Kabrda napsal(a):
> > > (tkinter is actually a subpackage of python itself)
> >
> > I guess you know what I mean here, but to be clear:
> >
> > tkinter is only an example, we got more, like pyserial, PyYAML...
>
> Oh, I see. Some time ago, FPC has accepted a change that says, that
> packages with "py" in name should be prefixed with "python-" anyway [1].
> Since this only applies to newly created packages, we will have to cope
> with this, unfortunately. So my idea of handling this would be:
> - all packages must have Provides: python-*
> - packages that weren't prefixed with "python-" previously (pyserial,
> PyYAML), should also carry an explicit Provides/Obsoletes for the old name.
> Sounds good?
>
> > Other thing:
> >
> > What about apps? Do we want something in the guidelines that would say:
> >
> > If the app clearly works with both Python 2 and Python 3,
> > then the Fedora package is obligated to use Python 3 instead
> > of Python 2.
> >
> > If however the app only works with one of them, obviously,
> > Fedora package uses and requires that one.
> >
> > Or do we keep that on the packager's decision?
>
> Toshio already proposed a guidelines solution for this [2], but now that I
> look at it, it seems that it never got proposed to FPC. Toshio, will you
> propose that or should I? I guess we can do this regardless of the change
> I'm proposing now.
>
>
>
> How about using "python" in that case? "python-*" should use the correct python
> version, whichever is enabled in the current Fedora release, so nothing should
> change for such programs.
>
> Take whaawmp [3] as an example and let's assume it works on python2 and python3
> out of the box. There is "python" everywhere, so when there is the switch from
> "python pointing to python2" to "python pointing to python3" (and similar for
> all python macros of course), a simple rebuild should be sufficient. Isn't it?
>
/usr/bin/python3 before we switch /usr/bin/python over to point at
/usr/bin/python3. So it would be best to keep these separate. Also, if
"/usr/bin/python" gets injected into programs, there's a moderate to high
chance that they'll fail (many applications are still python2 vs python3
selectable at build time rather than at runtime).
That was my point. When /usr/bin/python is switched to point to /usr/bin/python3, then %{python_sitearch} also needs a switch to %{python3_sitearch} (and all other macros too) and the application can see at build time which python is around and build/work with that.
If a package maintainer wants to switch to python3 earlier, then (s)he can do so, but this use case from above would be automatic this way.
Greetings,
Greetings,
Tom
-- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
