On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:34 PM Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer(a)ktdreyer.com&gt; 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.

On 02. 12. 19 23:09, Ken Dreyer wrote: > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 11:47 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:34 PM Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer(a)ktdreyer.com&gt; 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

On 03. 12. 19 0:54, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 12:38:01AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: >> On 02. 12. 19 23:09, Ken Dreyer wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 11:47 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:34 PM Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer(a)ktdreyer.com&gt; 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 > > I think we should encourage people to just use python3-foo now, but I > agree it would be a lot of work to try and convert everything to do > that. > > The orig reason was so we could move python stacks forward since we were > maintaining them in epel. Since python 3.6 is in rhel and rhel7 is past > the point where I would expect many changes, I think 3.6 is here to > stay, so we dont really need it anymore. It's just extra noise that > makes spec files less readable now. If we want to get rid of it, we might just: Fix the cases where srpm is called python3-foo and subpackage python36-foo. Switch the %{python3_pkgversion} to 3 (= remove the redefinition from EPEL). Rebuild everything. Profit. The problem of course, is bootstrapping.

On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 12:38:01AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 02. 12. 19 23:09, Ken Dreyer wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 11:47 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 1:34 PM Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer(a)ktdreyer.com&gt; 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 I think we should encourage people to just use python3-foo now, but I agree it would be a lot of work to try and convert everything to do that. The orig reason was so we could move python stacks forward since we were maintaining them in epel. Since python 3.6 is in rhel and rhel7 is past the point where I would expect many changes, I think 3.6 is here to stay, so we dont really need it anymore. It's just extra noise that makes spec files less readable now. kevin