Hey all,
Things have changed in Python runtime packaging since we started
introducing alternative Python versions years ago. For one, we now
always have fully versioned source packages, and now we have a flag
for whether the packages are "main runtime" vs "alternate runtime".
Another is that RHEL now offers multiple Python runtimes that you can
build packages from.
I'm wondering if it makes sense to continue having the logic in the
Python runtime packaging for "flatpackage" when we can now just have
them build as alternative runtimes. This doesn't get rid of the
concept of a "main runtime" that is generally supported by the macros,
but it brings us closer in line with what our downstreams are doing.
This could also ease Python transitions in the future, since we
wouldn't have the Python runtime ripped out from under us for DNF as
we rebootstrap the whole environment to a new Python version default.
At least for me, it would also make it easier for me to trivially
rebuild packages in COPR against an alternate Python version for
specific purposes, too, since the only required change to switch to an
alternate runtime would be setting %__python/%__python3 and making
sure the subpackage has the fully qualified Python version name in it.
What do you all think? Is this crazy talk or something we might want
to think about?
--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!