On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 10:57:25AM -0700, Pete Travis wrote:
On 01/26/2015 10:45 AM, Thomas Spura wrote:
> Pete Travis <me(a)petetravis.com <mailto:email@example.com>> schrieb am
> Mon Jan 26 2015 at 5:24:32 PM:
> On 01/26/2015 08:53 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > Hi,
> > since bug #1126521 seems to be progressing nicely, I think it
> would be
> > nice to get in touch with python-sig, the maintainers of
> > python3-dateutil, about retiring python3-dateutil and adding a
> > subpackage to python-dateutil. They might want to do it the
> other way
> > around, which would be fine too, but either way, something should be
> > arranged.
> > I tried to sign up for the python-sig mailing list, but it is
> > "private" and I haven't received any welcome letter, so I
> > stuck in some moderation queue.
> > Zbyszek
> Yes, I think it's a good time to bring up retiring python3-dateutil.
> I've also requested membership for that list, and included the list
> owners here, maybe they can expedite our requests.
> As python-dateutil is not (yet) under the python-sig group
> maintainership , you could reach the maintainers of python-dateutil
> under ther -owner mail address (CC'ed).
> python-sig(a)fp.o is for all group maintained package maintainers and
> general python related questions are handled on python-devel(a)fp.o
> (also CC'ed). (Sorry for the confusion, the python-sig
> groupmaintainership started very recently and is still a work in process.)
applied for the group membership just in case.
> I'd say it depends, how python3 will be introduced in F22,
> package should provide the subpackage and the other one should be retired.
> Maybe someone from  could comment on what they like to see in the
> future. I don't mind having two separate packages until we approach
> F22 and the future process is here.
Building python3-du from python-du seems
more standard, i.e. less confusing,
but of course there's no difference from the technical side.
No matter which name is chosen, it'd be nice to kill two birds
with one stone, and do the merge together with an update of
python3-dateutil to version 2.4. Scratch build is here:
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python_3_as_Default
We are proceeding with a planned Change with Zbyszek acting on behalf
of the python-dateutil owner. He has already adapted
python-dateutil.spec to provide a python3-dateutil and, with the
relevant maintainers, we have been testing dependent packages with a
scratch build of that package.
The python3-dateutil package is around because upstream did not have
sources that would work with both anymore. That is no longer the case,
so the logical route to us is to retire python3-dateutil as a unique
srpm. The participation of they python-sig as package owners, and
insight on how to best transition, would be very helpful.
My apologies if this is encroaching on python-sig territory; we saw a
need for change and took initiative.