On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 12:12 PM Petr Viktorin <pviktori@redhat.com> wrote:
On 01/17/2018 12:38 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 01:02:32PM -0800, Troy Dawson wrote:
>> Hello,
>> Python3 will be in the next major RHEL release.  I don't mean RHEL
>> 7.6, but with numbers higher than 7.
>> There are many, many packages with something like the following
>>    if 0%{?fedora}
>>     %define with_python3 1
>>    %endif
>> If you have something like that, please change it to something like this.
>>    if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} > 7
>>     %define with_python3 1
>>    %endif
> I'll say it once again, but why can't we just have
> %{python2_available} and %{python3_available} macros defined in the
> base system?

Mostly because we can't change RHEL.

So, how about %{python2_missing} and %{python3_available}? Is that too
ugly and inconsistent?

We don't need to change RHEL. We just need to add %{python2_available} to the epel-srpm-macros package. Or am I missing something? Yes, this will only work for packages built against EPEL 7 and not for third-party build-systems, but that's not something we have to care about, is it?