Hi, Currently, `dnf install python-package` will give you the Python 2 version. But, as you might know, upstream support for Python 2 will end in 2020. Around that time (or earlier), we'd like to make "python" mean Python 3 in Fedora. Before we do that switch, we need to stop using unqualified "python" in package names, and instead use either "python2" or "python3" everywhere. Current packaging guidelines encourage packagers to do the right thing (see below for details). But it's not required, and many old packages use names that assume "python" means "Python 2". What should we do? Should we mass fill bugs asking the packagers nicely to follow the new guidelines, or should we make a policy about this first and have the mass filled bugs backed up by it?

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:12 PM, John Dennis <jdennis(a)redhat.com <mailto:jdennis@redhat.com>> wrote: On 04/19/2017 05:17 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: Hi, Currently, `dnf install python-package` will give you the Python 2 version. But, as you might know, upstream support for Python 2 will end in 2020. Around that time (or earlier), we'd like to make "python" mean Python 3 in Fedora. Before we do that switch, we need to stop using unqualified "python" in package names, and instead use either "python2" or "python3" everywhere. Current packaging guidelines encourage packagers to do the right thing (see below for details). But it's not required, and many old packages use names that assume "python" means "Python 2". What should we do? Should we mass fill bugs asking the packagers nicely to follow the new guidelines, or should we make a policy about this first and have the mass filled bugs backed up by it? Thank you for raising this issue, it's important. Having just completed some python packaging work for both Fedora and RHEL I can attest the current situation is a bit of a mess. There is inconsistency in Fedora over the use of the python-provide macro and there can be a fair amount of manual work trying to figure out what names should be used for dependencies. Compounding the problem is the fact many maintainers have a desire to share the spec file between Fedora and RHEL for obvious reasons. The situation is far worse in RHEL-7, it's a hodgepodge of different names compounded by the lack of the same python macros being used in Fedora. Spec files have gotten really ugly and I'm worried about the number of "hacks" being added to spec files to compensate (i.e. copying macro definitions into the spec file so the same logic can be used in RHEL). I realize this is a Fedora specific mailing list but we can't simply ignore the reality of how packaging is often shared between the two distributions. After having experienced the pain involved due to the inconsistencies (both intra-Fedora and inter-Fedora) my vote would be to: 1) Define the exact rules and migration path. 2) Coordinate with RHEL. and EPEL. 3) File bugs and mandate the rules from #1 be followed and that all packages must comply within a well defined period. This won't be a one step process. Even if one day I follow the guideline, on my next package update I don't read the guideline and create a non-compliant package. 4) create scripts which automatically check whether the policy is followed and open bugs.

Marcin -- John _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org> To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:packaging-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org>

>>>> "CS" == Charalampos Stratakis <cstratak(a)redhat.com&gt; writes: