On Thursday, January 18, 2018 6:11:31 PM CET Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 01/17/2018 12:38 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 01:02:32PM -0800, Troy Dawson wrote:
>> Hello,
>> Python3 will be in the next major RHEL release. I don't mean RHEL
>> 7.6, but with numbers higher than 7.
>> There are many, many packages with something like the following
>>
>> if 0%{?fedora}
>> %define with_python3 1
>> %endif
>>
>> If you have something like that, please change it to something like this.
>>
>> if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} > 7
>> %define with_python3 1
>> %endif
>
> I'll say it once again, but why can't we just have
> %{python2_available} and %{python3_available} macros defined in the
> base system?
Mostly because we can't change RHEL.
Oxymoron? :-) Really, why we can not have macros updated? This case seems to
be worth it.
Pavel
So, how about %{python2_missing} and %{python3_available}? Is that
too
ugly and inconsistent?
--
Petr Viktorin
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org