On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 07:29:35AM -0500, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
I started working on updating python3 to 3.4.0. So far, this is only in
a private branch "python3.4" in dist-git, since I'll need to get a Change
approved for Fedora 21. I already created the Change , but I was told
that it will get on FESCo schedule when Fedora 21 schedule and future is
more clear, so for now I'll just work on Python 3.4.0.
Hmmm.... Putting on a fesco hat, I would be more than willing to approve
changes for F21 now.... We've already approved Python3 as Default which has
both F21 and F22 goals.
I think that the F21 Schedule and Product desciptions are somewhat
orthogonal to some features including this. The things I'm looking at that
imply that are:
* Something that either is non-specific to one of our products
* Something that is an upgrade of packages already in Fedora
So in my view -- submit the Change! :-)
When Python 3.4.0 reaches beta1 (which means feature freeze, which
means that the bytecode format should no longer change) - November 24 
- I plan to create a repo in Copr so that everyone has access to built
RPMs, and also I want to start rebuilding as many packages as possible to
see how they work with Python 3.4.
<nod> The rebuilding make me want to get this into the main repos early.
As for the current state of Python 3.4 in the dist-git branch:
- It still seems a bit unclear what upstream will do with the sha3
implementation (although they will probably keep it), so I didn't rebase
the fips patch yet, there is still plenty of time for that.
I think Christian outlined what they are going to do with sha3 yesterday
(but yeah, it depends on what is happening with the sha3 standard so there's
a bit of uncertainty there still).
- pep453  (pip bootstraping) hasn't been implemented yet. The
contains recommendation for distro packagers, so here's what we should do.
-- Make a circular dependency between python3 and python3-pip (ugly, will
require bootstraping with every new Python minor version).
Do you mean minor version as in the "4" in 3.4 or as in the micro level
We can get around bootstrapping at minor version revs if pip is only used at
runtime, not at buildtime.
We can still get around bootstrapping at micro version if we are careful
never to include pip's code in the package. Only figure out where to find
-- Definitely delete bundled CA certificates and use system
-- Maybe remove the bundled pip (although this goes against the pep)
use python3-pip. E.g. everything would work as expected, but under the
wraps, python3-pip package would be used. So when doing security updates,
we'd just fix python3-pip. It is however true that if Fedora's pip would
be different from the upstream bundled one, users may experience some
behaviour differencies. I'd like to hear your opinions on how we should
We should definitely do this. pip itself bundles code that we've had to
unbundle locally -- maintaining that morass of software again (it's also
bundled inside of virtualenv...) is going to lead to a lot of work anytime
an update needs to happen.
However, talking with ncoghlan it may not be simple. The case that makes
things tricky is pyvenv. Upstream python wants to protect venv's from
changes to code on the system. ie: if a user installs a backwards
incompatible pip on the system, that should not affect the pip inside the
existing venvs. Equally, if there are security issues found with pip, those
changes would not be propogated to the pip inside the venvs.
ncoghlan proposed that we create wheels in the pip package (and all the
packages that pip bundles that we have to unbundle) and then when ensurepip
installs into a venv, it copies those wheels in there.
I'm wondering if we could do a little better. Instead of keeping around two
copies of all this software on the system, if we can reconstruct a wheel zip
(or possibly just copy the files in) from the wheel metadata and files on
the system. I know that sysadmins and developers will hotfix software on
the system for issues that they care about. Having those changes propogate
to newly installed venvs seems like a better plan than having the venvs get
the old copies that were built at rpm build time.