On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:39:50PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:15:58AM -0600, William Moreno wrote: > > I am packaging only one version build with phyton 3 and naming it mkdocs, > > but I am not sure it is better to name this docs as python3-mkdocs and > > build python-mkdocs also. If you default to the py3 version, I'd suggest you use mkdocts-py2 or python2-mkdocs for the py2 version. Note: you could add a Provides: python3-mkdocs to the main package or vice versa, make the package be named python3-mkdocs and add a Provides: mkdocs if the usual name of the application (the one people will use when looking for it) is indeed mkdocs (cf also the remark from Matthew I trimed down from this email). > > Really I not sure how to proceed in this case, but I think if it would be good > > to have both versions available for booth Python releases and provide by > > default the version for Python 3 when a user install mkdocs with dnf. > > What would be the advantage of having two versions? Well the python universe is still very much py2 but the future is py3 and we should aim for it, so it makes sense to have both :) Pierre -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
