On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 11:13 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 29 June 2017 at 10:44, Iryna Shcherbina
<ishcherb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Why would it stop building?
> By explicitly defining the dependency to be py2 one in your Python 2
> package, you will just make sure it will not start pulling Python 3
> dependencies in a few years when the switch happens.
>
>
Personally I think that going with py3 -> py at any time is going to
be a problem. Will there never be a python4 or python5? Will we just
leave that problem to repeat itself in 2028? when we have to do
another complete rename because python3 is EOL?
Right, that's a good point. *Why* exactly do we want to go to all the
trouble involved in making a switchover from 'python-foo' meaning 'the
Python 2 module called foo' to meaning 'the Python 3 module called
foo'? What is the actual benefit of this, as opposed to just
deprecating unversioned Python package names and provides entirely?
Wouldn't it be better to say that 'python-foo always means python2-foo,
but it's deprecated and we should be gradually moving to provides and
requires with the python major version number included in all
packages'?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net