I would argue here that it is more of maintenance burden, trying to keep a SPEC file synced between distros, than having a different SPEC for each branch. There are even SPECs that use suse macros in order to keep the same SPEC pretty much everywhere, and while it might be an interesting work to do, I do not really see any advantages from the packager's POV. In regards to RHEL packaging. At the next rhel 7 minor release, the fedora python packaging macros will be included, so that would help with some aspects of packaging for RHEL and EPEL. What would you mean to coordinate with RHEL though? Charalampos Stratakis Associate Software Engineer Python Maintenance Team, Red Hat ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Dennis" <jdennis@xxxxxxxxxx> To: "Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora" <packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Miro Hrončok" <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 4:12:14 PM Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Re: How to "enforce" new Python packaging Guidelines (for naming) On 04/19/2017 05:17 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: > Hi, > > Currently, `dnf install python-package` will give you the Python 2 > version. But, as you might know, upstream support for Python 2 will end > in 2020. Around that time (or earlier), we'd like to make "python" mean > Python 3 in Fedora. > Before we do that switch, we need to stop using unqualified "python" in > package names, and instead use either "python2" or "python3" everywhere. > > Current packaging guidelines encourage packagers to do the right thing > (see below for details). But it's not required, and many old packages > use names that assume "python" means "Python 2". > > What should we do? Should we mass fill bugs asking the packagers nicely > to follow the new guidelines, or should we make a policy about this > first and have the mass filled bugs backed up by it? Thank you for raising this issue, it's important. Having just completed some python packaging work for both Fedora and RHEL I can attest the current situation is a bit of a mess. There is inconsistency in Fedora over the use of the python-provide macro and there can be a fair amount of manual work trying to figure out what names should be used for dependencies. Compounding the problem is the fact many maintainers have a desire to share the spec file between Fedora and RHEL for obvious reasons. The situation is far worse in RHEL-7, it's a hodgepodge of different names compounded by the lack of the same python macros being used in Fedora. Spec files have gotten really ugly and I'm worried about the number of "hacks" being added to spec files to compensate (i.e. copying macro definitions into the spec file so the same logic can be used in RHEL). I realize this is a Fedora specific mailing list but we can't simply ignore the reality of how packaging is often shared between the two distributions. After having experienced the pain involved due to the inconsistencies (both intra-Fedora and inter-Fedora) my vote would be to: 1) Define the exact rules and migration path. 2) Coordinate with RHEL. 3) File bugs and mandate the rules from #1 be followed and that all packages must comply within a well defined period. -- John _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
