three questions: f24 branch, python3 default, where to put /etc/rsyslog.d/gluster.conf.example

[Kaleb S. KEITHLEY]

Hi,

1) usually after the branch I build new packages for rawhide (i.e.
$branch+1). But atm in the master branch, a `fedpkg build` gives me

    Could not execute build: Package glusterfs-3.7.8-1.fc24 has already
been built

Am I just too early? Or is there something missing that's preventing
builds for f25.


2) Despite several articles out in the wild claiming that {F22,F23,F24}
will switch to Python3 as the default, [1] would seem to indicate that
the only thing we're going to see is 1) the update of Python3 from 3.4
to 3.5, and 2) Python3 system-python and system-python-libs will be
split out; however the default python will remain Python2.

Is that correct?


3) The Fedora and upstream glusterfs.spec file package example rsyslog
config files for some distributions. (Although since Fedora hasn't used
rsyslog by default since F20 or so, these aren't actually installed on
recent Fedora releases.) The packaging guidelines don't appear to say
anything on the topic. Absent anything in the packaging guidelines, is
there a consensus for where they should be installed on systems that do
use rsyslog, e.g. EPEL/EL6?

In /etc/rsyslog.d/glusterfs.conf.example? Or somewhere else, e.g.
/usr/share/doc/glusterfs/rsyslog.d/glusterfs.conf.example?


[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/24/ChangeSet

Thanks,

-- 

Kaleb

[Peter Robinson]

>  1) usually after the branch I build new packages for rawhide (i.e.
>  $branch+1). But atm in the master branch, a `fedpkg build` gives me
>
>      Could not execute build: Package glusterfs-3.7.8-1.fc24 has already
>  been built
>
>  Am I just too early? Or is there something missing that's preventing
>  builds for f25. 
The branching is ongoing, there was infrastructure issues last night
so it's taken a bit longer than planned.

>  2) Despite several articles out in the wild claiming that
> {F22,F23,F24}
>  will switch to Python3 as the default, [1] would seem to indicate that
>  the only thing we're going to see is 1) the update of Python3 from 3.4
>  to 3.5, and 2) Python3 system-python and system-python-libs will be
>  split out; however the default python will remain Python2.
>
>  Is that correct? 
Not really, py3 is the default by means of being the only python
shipped in a number of Fedora deliverables but there's also some that
can't move directly to pure python3 yet due to other issues (like
ansible only bein py2 at the moment). So it's a "it depends" answer.

[Stephen Gallagher]

On 02/24/2016 09:30 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > 1) usually after the branch I build new packages for rawhide
> (i.e.
> > $branch+1). But atm in the master branch, a `fedpkg build` gives me
> >
> >      Could not execute build: Package glusterfs-3.7.8-1.fc24 has already
> > been built
> >
> > Am I just too early? Or is there something missing that's preventing
> > builds for f25.
>
>  The branching is ongoing, there was infrastructure issues last night
>  so it's taken a bit longer than planned.
>
> > 2) Despite several articles out in the wild claiming that {F22,F23,F24}
> > will switch to Python3 as the default, [1] would seem to indicate that
> > the only thing we're going to see is 1) the update of Python3 from 3.4
> > to 3.5, and 2) Python3 system-python and system-python-libs will be
> > split out; however the default python will remain Python2.
> >
> > Is that correct?
>
>  Not really, py3 is the default by means of being the only python
>  shipped in a number of Fedora deliverables but there's also some that
>  can't move directly to pure python3 yet due to other issues (like
>  ansible only bein py2 at the moment). So it's a "it depends" answer.

To supplement this, it's the default in the sense that packagers are expected to 
ship python3 packages if they are supported upstream and if the package includes 
the same binary executable name for py2 and py3, only the py3 package should 
ship it.

[Kaleb S. KEITHLEY]

On 02/24/2016 09:45 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>  On 02/24/2016 09:30 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> >> 1) usually after the branch I build new packages for rawhide (i.e.
> >> $branch+1). But atm in the master branch, a `fedpkg build` gives me
> >>
> >>      Could not execute build: Package glusterfs-3.7.8-1.fc24 has already
> >> been built
> >>
> >> Am I just too early? Or is there something missing that's preventing
> >> builds for f25.
> >
> > The branching is ongoing, there was infrastructure issues last night
> > so it's taken a bit longer than planned.
> >
> >> 2) Despite several articles out in the wild claiming that {F22,F23,F24}
> >> will switch to Python3 as the default, [1] would seem to indicate that
> >> the only thing we're going to see is 1) the update of Python3 from 3.4
> >> to 3.5, and 2) Python3 system-python and system-python-libs will be
> >> split out; however the default python will remain Python2.
> >>
> >> Is that correct?
> >
> > Not really, py3 is the default by means of being the only python
> > shipped in a number of Fedora deliverables but there's also some that
> > can't move directly to pure python3 yet due to other issues (like
> > ansible only bein py2 at the moment). So it's a "it depends" answer.
>  
>  
>  To supplement this, it's the default in the sense that packagers are
>  expected to ship python3 packages if they are supported upstream and if
>  the package includes the same binary executable name for py2 and py3,
>  only the py3 package should ship it. 
I guess I don't really grok what that means. And/or I didn't frame my
question very well.

I installed a fresh rawhide Fedora/Server two days ago.

It has both python-2.7.11-4.fc24.x86_64 and python3-3.5.1-4.fc24.x86_64.
 /usr/bin/python is a symlink to python2.

Under what circumstances will /usr/bin/python be Python3?

Thanks

-- 

Kaleb

[Stephen Gallagher]

On 02/24/2016 09:58 AM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
>  On 02/24/2016 09:45 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > On 02/24/2016 09:30 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> >>> 1) usually after the branch I build new packages for rawhide (i.e.
> >>> $branch+1). But atm in the master branch, a `fedpkg build` gives me
> >>>
> >>>       Could not execute build: Package glusterfs-3.7.8-1.fc24 has already
> >>> been built
> >>>
> >>> Am I just too early? Or is there something missing that's preventing
> >>> builds for f25.
> >>
> >> The branching is ongoing, there was infrastructure issues last night
> >> so it's taken a bit longer than planned.
> >>
> >>> 2) Despite several articles out in the wild claiming that {F22,F23,F24}
> >>> will switch to Python3 as the default, [1] would seem to indicate that
> >>> the only thing we're going to see is 1) the update of Python3 from 3.4
> >>> to 3.5, and 2) Python3 system-python and system-python-libs will be
> >>> split out; however the default python will remain Python2.
> >>>
> >>> Is that correct?
> >>
> >> Not really, py3 is the default by means of being the only python
> >> shipped in a number of Fedora deliverables but there's also some that
> >> can't move directly to pure python3 yet due to other issues (like
> >> ansible only bein py2 at the moment). So it's a "it depends"
> answer.
> >
> >
> > To supplement this, it's the default in the sense that packagers are
> > expected to ship python3 packages if they are supported upstream and if
> > the package includes the same binary executable name for py2 and py3,
> > only the py3 package should ship it.
>
>  I guess I don't really grok what that means. And/or I didn't frame my
>  question very well.
>
>  I installed a fresh rawhide Fedora/Server two days ago.
>
>  It has both python-2.7.11-4.fc24.x86_64 and python3-3.5.1-4.fc24.x86_64. 
Yeah, this is because the Samba and FreeIPA packages didn't quite finish their 
python 3 conversion in time. By F25, we should be able to avoid shipping python 
2 in the default installation of Fedora Server.


>    /usr/bin/python is a symlink to python2.
>
>  Under what circumstances will /usr/bin/python be Python3? 
Under no circumstances whatsoever :)

"Python 3 by default" != /usr/bin/python -> /usr/bin/python3

Python 3 by default means that our install media shouldn't have to include 
python 2 (but it can still be in the repository)

Upstream python doesn't want any downstream distro to change the meaning of 
/usr/bin/python because far too much software depends on the (bad) assumption 
that this is always python 2. So that symlink won't change for the foreseeable 
future (Well, it might change in 2020 when Python 2 finally goes completely EOL).

[Peter Robinson]

>  Yeah, this is because the Samba and FreeIPA packages didn't quite
> finish
>  their python 3 conversion in time. By F25, we should be able to avoid
>  shipping python 2 in the default installation of Fedora Server. 

Except if you want to use ansible to managed that, although in theory
support for that is on the nearish roadmap.

Peter

[Bill Nottingham]

Peter Robinson (pbrobinson(a)gmail.com) said: 
>  > Yeah, this is because the Samba and FreeIPA packages didn't
> quite finish
>  > their python 3 conversion in time. By F25, we should be able to avoid
>  > shipping python 2 in the default installation of Fedora Server.
>  
>  Except if you want to use ansible to managed that, although in theory
>  support for that is on the nearish roadmap. 
"near-ish" is relative, of course.. But it's in the works.

Bill

[Stephen Gallagher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/24/2016 10:41 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>  Peter Robinson (pbrobinson(a)gmail.com) said:
> >> Yeah, this is because the Samba and FreeIPA packages didn't quite
> >> finish their python 3 conversion in time. By F25, we should be able to
> >> avoid shipping python 2 in the default installation of Fedora Server.
> > 
> > Except if you want to use ansible to managed that, although in theory 
> > support for that is on the nearish roadmap.
>  
>  "near-ish" is relative, of course.. But it's in the works.
>   
Well, we have ansible support as an optional add-on group in comps. It's on
the disk (so we'll have python2 on the install media) but not the bare minimum
install. Possibly that's splitting hairs, but it's not *strictly* part of the
default install.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlbN11YACgkQeiVVYja6o6O9hwCgpAck5dkjCveQH/zgpTnBufMm
kkkAoIeJ5nXBoOYOOdo4jz3Zb1aEs/i/
=MJoi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Dave Johansen]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com&gt;
wrote:

>  On 02/24/2016 09:58 AM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
>
> > On 02/24/2016 09:45 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >
> >> On 02/24/2016 09:30 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> >>
> >>> 1) usually after the branch I build new packages for rawhide (i.e.
> >>>> $branch+1). But atm in the master branch, a `fedpkg build` gives me
> >>>>
> >>>>       Could not execute build: Package glusterfs-3.7.8-1.fc24 has
> >>>> already
> >>>> been built
> >>>>
> >>>> Am I just too early? Or is there something missing that's preventing
> >>>> builds for f25.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The branching is ongoing, there was infrastructure issues last night
> >>> so it's taken a bit longer than planned.
> >>>
> >>> 2) Despite several articles out in the wild claiming that {F22,F23,F24}
> >>>> will switch to Python3 as the default, [1] would seem to indicate that
> >>>> the only thing we're going to see is 1) the update of Python3 from
> 3.4
> >>>> to 3.5, and 2) Python3 system-python and system-python-libs will be
> >>>> split out; however the default python will remain Python2.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is that correct?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Not really, py3 is the default by means of being the only python
> >>> shipped in a number of Fedora deliverables but there's also some that
> >>> can't move directly to pure python3 yet due to other issues (like
> >>> ansible only bein py2 at the moment). So it's a "it depends"
> answer.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> To supplement this, it's the default in the sense that packagers are
> >> expected to ship python3 packages if they are supported upstream and if
> >> the package includes the same binary executable name for py2 and py3,
> >> only the py3 package should ship it.
> >>
> >
> > I guess I don't really grok what that means. And/or I didn't frame my
> > question very well.
> >
> > I installed a fresh rawhide Fedora/Server two days ago.
> >
> > It has both python-2.7.11-4.fc24.x86_64 and python3-3.5.1-4.fc24.x86_64.
> >
>
>  Yeah, this is because the Samba and FreeIPA packages didn't quite finish
>  their python 3 conversion in time. By F25, we should be able to avoid
>  shipping python 2 in the default installation of Fedora Server.
>
>
>    /usr/bin/python is a symlink to python2.
> >
> > Under what circumstances will /usr/bin/python be Python3?
> >
>
>  Under no circumstances whatsoever :)
>
>  "Python 3 by default" != /usr/bin/python -> /usr/bin/python3
>  
At one point it did mean that (
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python_3_as_Default ) but the
decision for that to not be the case has not really been communicated well.
The original questions was just trying to clarify that the change for
"/usr/bin/python to continue linking to /usr/bin/python2" was Fedora's
current position.

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> >>>> "SG" == Stephen Gallagher
> <sgallagh(a)redhat.com&gt; writes: 
SG> To supplement this, it's the default in the sense that packagers are
SG> expected to ship python3 packages if they are supported upstream and
SG> if the package includes the same binary executable name for py2 and
SG> py3, only the py3 package should ship it.

Given the number of questions that keep coming up about this, I have to
wonder if the Python packaging guidelines are unclear, or if people
don't realize that they should look there for the rules surrounding
how Fedora deals with the various python versions.

If they're unclear, I can try to clarify them.  I've already done so a
couple of times but maybe not sufficiently.

 - J<

[Dave Johansen]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu&gt;
wrote:

>  >>>>> "SG" == Stephen Gallagher
> <sgallagh(a)redhat.com&gt; writes:
>
>  SG> To supplement this, it's the default in the sense that packagers are
>  SG> expected to ship python3 packages if they are supported upstream and
>  SG> if the package includes the same binary executable name for py2 and
>  SG> py3, only the py3 package should ship it.
>
>  Given the number of questions that keep coming up about this, I have to
>  wonder if the Python packaging guidelines are unclear, or if people
>  don't realize that they should look there for the rules surrounding
>  how Fedora deals with the various python versions.
>
>  If they're unclear, I can try to clarify them.  I've already done so a
>  couple of times but maybe not sufficiently.
>  
I think the confusion comes from the fact that for several releases we
heard "get ready because Python 3 is going to be the default" and then all
of the sudden that just stopped. From the wiki about it (
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python_3_as_Default ) it appears
that the plan is still to make Python 3 the default and when you google
"fedora python" that wiki is the second item on the list. I think that
updating that wiki with the current plan would help a lot.

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> >>>> "DJ" == Dave Johansen
> <davejohansen(a)gmail.com&gt; writes: 
DJ> I think the confusion comes from the fact that for several releases
DJ> we heard "get ready because Python 3 is going to be the default" and
DJ> then all of the sudden that just stopped.

In that case, the issue is simply the definition of "default" and
perhaps a failure in the communication of the point behind that effort.

Where /usr/bin/python points is something we're going to change only
when the Python upstream recommends that it be changes, assuming that
ever happens.  This goes for things like ipython as well; the
unversioned executable is a link pointing to the python2 version.

The "Python3 as default" effort is embodied by these bits from the
guidelines:

"
If a piece of software supports python3, it must be packaged for
python3.  If it supports python2 as well, it may be packaged for
python2.
"

"
If the executables provide the same functionality independent of whether
they are run on top of Python 2 or Python 3, then only the Python 3
version of the executable should be packaged.
"

That's about it.  Package modules for py3 if they support it.  If
software doesn't care, use py3.  The "python3 as default" thing wasn't
dropped, it was completed (as far as the guidelines go, of course; I
doubt all of the packages in the distro have caught up).

 - J<

[Josh Boyer]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY <kkeithle(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  Hi,
>
>  1) usually after the branch I build new packages for rawhide (i.e.
>  $branch+1). But atm in the master branch, a `fedpkg build` gives me
>
>      Could not execute build: Package glusterfs-3.7.8-1.fc24 has already
>  been built
>
>  Am I just too early? Or is there something missing that's preventing
>  builds for f25.
>
>
>  2) Despite several articles out in the wild claiming that {F22,F23,F24}
>  will switch to Python3 as the default, [1] would seem to indicate that
>  the only thing we're going to see is 1) the update of Python3 from 3.4
>  to 3.5, and 2) Python3 system-python and system-python-libs will be
>  split out; however the default python will remain Python2. 
For the most part, you can ignore system-python.  It is intended to be
used by self-selecting system tools (think eventually something like
dnf), and I'm not sure glusterfs will ever really map to that.  It
certainly won't in F24 anyway.

josh

[Orion Poplawski]

On 02/24/2016 07:17 AM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
>  Hi,
>  
>  1) usually after the branch I build new packages for rawhide (i.e.
>  $branch+1). But atm in the master branch, a `fedpkg build` gives me
>  
>      Could not execute build: Package glusterfs-3.7.8-1.fc24 has already
>  been built
>  
>  Am I just too early? Or is there something missing that's preventing
>  builds for f25. 
Did you do a git pull to bring down the new f24 branch?  I think that is what
fedpkg keys off of.


-- 
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager                     303-415-9701 x222
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office             FAX: [phone]
3380 Mitchell Lane                       orion(a)nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301                   http://www.nwra.com

[Kaleb S. KEITHLEY]

On 02/24/2016 10:46 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>  On 02/24/2016 07:17 AM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > 1) usually after the branch I build new packages for rawhide (i.e.
> > $branch+1). But atm in the master branch, a `fedpkg build` gives me
> >
> >     Could not execute build: Package glusterfs-3.7.8-1.fc24 has already
> > been built
> >
> > Am I just too early? Or is there something missing that's preventing
> > builds for f25.
>  
>  Did you do a git pull to bring down the new f24 branch?  I think that is what
>  fedpkg keys off of.
>   
Yes. I'm not a git expert by any means, but I do know that much. ;-)

-- 

Kaleb