On 24 Feb 2016 17:12, "Jason L Tibbitts III" <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> wrote:
>
> You took this off-list; was that intentional? Feel free to forward my
> message back to the list if you wish.
>
> >>>>> "JH" == James Hogarth <james.hogarth(a)gmail.com> writes:
>
> JH> I suppose having the guidelines prefer requires on python-foo rather
> JH> than python2-foo, which would also solve this, only just kicks the
> JH> ball down the road a little and makes a system default switch harder
> JH> beyond the foreseeable future.
>
> Right; we really want to get away from anything having dependencies on
> the "un-python-versioned" packages or even using the "unversioned macros"
> unless they really do not care which "python-version" of a package they
> get. And even then, it would be far better to just make it explicit.
>
> JH> Surely you mean supplemented with new python libraries brought into
> JH> base?
>
> Well, if additional packages crop up which would need dummy packages
> then obviously we could add them. It would be kind of obvious when
> someone tries to build something for EPEL7 and finds that they'd need to
> add a conditional to get the "un-python-versioned" package, at which
> point they could simply ask for the dummy to come into existence.
>
> JH> Unless you envision internally at Red Hat the specs there
> JH> being changed in a future milestone to provide the python2-foo stuff
> JH> in addition to python-foo and being more similar to the Fedora/EPEL
> JH> packages?
>
> Well, it sure would be nice.
>
> JH> Are you planning this for EPEL6 as well or just EPEL7?
>
> I wasn't, but I could.
>
> JH> Admittedly packaging for EPEL6 means a lot of conditionals anyway if
> JH> the spec files weren't separated in the first place...
>
> We're trying to eliminate as much of that as possible. It's a long
> process.
>
> JH> If the version of python2-foo is set to zero how do you picture
> JH> Requires: python2-foo >= 0.4 being resolved?
>
> Not sure. I'm also not entirely sure it matters; either the version you
> need is available in RHEL or there's no point in building the package.
> And if it does matter, all we have to do is pick the same version as the
> base RHEL package with a lower release (probably just 0).
>
> - J<
Replying to get this back on list...
Apologies was responding on my tablet and didn't notice it defaulted to
reply, not reply all, unlike my desktop...