----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeremy McMillan" <jeremy.mcmillan@xxxxxxxxx> > To: "Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora" <packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 6:36:28 PM > Subject: Re: Naming of Python 3 binaries > > > > Yes, please make the unversioned binary the default version required by > system utilities. Python 2 should be relegated to special case use where > library dependencies cannot be made to work under Python 3. This should > probably be made explicit in release notes and documentation. > On Nov 25, 2015 6:16 AM, "Juan Orti Alcaine" < j.orti.alcaine@xxxxxxxxx > > wrote: > There is already a fpc ticket to address python binaries confusion, https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/558 > > Hi, > > I'm reading the guidelines about the naming of conflicting > python2/python3 binaries [1], and I have doubts about if it is up to > date. > It says: "The unversioned executable must be the python2 version.", is > this still true? In the example shown some lines before, the > unversioned binary goes to the python3 package. > > With python3 as the default I guess the unversioned binary should be > the python3 one. > > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Naming > > > -- > Juan Orti > https://apuntesderootblog.wordpress.com/ > -- > packaging mailing list > packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > -- > packaging mailing list > packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Robert Kuska {rkuska} -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
