I'm not sure I understand your question. This proposal is about
python36 packages, not the existing python34 packages or hypothetical
python38 packages. In any case, packages shouldn't be requiring
python* directly. They automatically get a requirement on
`python(abi) = X.Y` that serves this purpose.
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 4:57 AM Andrew C Aitchison
<andrew(a)aitchison.me.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2021, Carl George wrote:
> RHEL7 ships Python 3.6 packages using the python3 prefix. Currently
> EPEL7 contains Python 3.6 packages using both the python3 and python36
> prefixes. Thanks to the foresight and preparation work of the Red Hat
> Python Maintenance team, these work interchangeably when using the
> %python_provide macro. However the situation is still confusing for
> packagers and users. We never formalized guidelines on which prefix
> to use. I would like to change that. I propose that we standardize
> on the python3 prefix to match RHEL7 packages and document in EPEL
> guidelines that maintainers SHOULD use the python3 prefix.
Do we need to be explicit about how we spell any value of these keys
- e.g. should it be
Requires: python >= 38
or
Requires: python >= 3.8
?
--
Andrew C. Aitchison Kendal, UK
andrew(a)aitchison.me.uk
_______________________________________________
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproj...
--
Carl George