On 02. 12. 19 23:09, Ken Dreyer wrote:
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 11:47 AM Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:34 PM Ken Dreyer ktdreyer@ktdreyer.com wrote:
Hi folks,
In EPEL 7 we have some packages with "python34" and "python36" prefixes in their names. I guess this is a consequence of using the %{python3_pkgversion} macro over time.
Now that RHEL 7 has Python 3.6, and we want to deprecate Python 3.4 in EPEL 7, I'm wondering about this.
If I'm introducing a Python 3 subpackage in a new build today, should I name this sub-package "python3-foo" or "python%{python3_pkgversion}-foo" ?
The subpackage should be "python%{python3_pkgversion}-foo" and you should also make sure you have "%{?python_provide:%python_provide python%{python3_pkgversion}-foo}" in the subpackage declaration too.
This is confusing to me, and it diverges from what Fedora does. Can we just reduce this down to "python3-" now that RHEL 7 has python3, and we'll probably never put another Python version into EPEL 7?
We **can** but we **haven't yet**. IMHO doing it in random packages is wrong.
Currently, python36-foo is form EPEL (and if done right, provides python3-foo). OTOH python3-bar is from RHEL (and if done right, provides python36-bar).
They both provide both names, but from first glance, the origin of the package is obvious. I kinda like that.
If we decide to redo this, it will be a lot of boring work for no clear benefit. If we decide to only allow it for new packages, it would be a mess.
That said, technically:
- it works either way - there is no real EPEL packaging guideline forcing one way or the other