On 02. 12. 19 23:09, Ken Dreyer wrote:
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 11:47 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:34 PM Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer(a)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
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok