On Wed, 2015-01-07 at 06:05 -0500, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> > Hi all,
> > I know I've been promising this for quite some time to several people, so
> > I
> > finally managed to put together a proposal for packaging Python 3 in EPEL
> > 7
> > (it'd also scale to EPEL 6 for that matter).
> > I've created a wiki page  with the proposal and I'd like to hear
> > comments
> > and thoughts on it. There are some TODOs and variants in few places - I'd
> > like to hear your opinions on these, or perhaps suggestions on better
> > approaches.
> > I'll create new documents with the updated proposal at some points during
> > the
> > discussion, so that people can easily see where the proposal is going
> > without having to compare wiki revisions.
> > Is there any other list/interested parties that should be put in CC of
> > this
> > mail? If so, please feel free to respond and do that yourself.
> > Thanks!
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Slavek Kabrda
> >  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/EPEL7_Python3
> Let's reiterate:
> - Nick Coghlan posted an interesting proposal to the discussion section in
> my proposal (my reaction is in the blue frame) . I'd appreciate more
> comments on this.
> - From the feedback gathered on this list:
> - We should have /usr/bin/python3 pointing to a python3X build. The
> question is which one this will be during transitional periods between
> 3X and 3X+1. My thinking is that we should point /usr/bin/python3 to
> 3X+1 at the time of retiring 3X (IMO there is no ideal time to do that,
> so it's not really important).
> - As for dist-git possibilities, Orion would prefer to use current
> dist-git repos with epel-7 branches. It's not my preference (for reasons
> mentioned in the proposal), but I'm not against it if that is what
> others wish.
> - Stephen Smoogen mentioned that the transitional period during which
> python3X and python3X+1 exist can be anywhere from 6 weeks to 2 months.
> I'm starting to think that we should only specify the minimum time for
> which 3X will be kept. So my proposal would be sth. like "3X is kept for
> minimum of 6 weeks in parallel to 3X+1. After this, it is retired as
> soon as all stakeholders have rebuilt against 3X+1." (keeping it a bit
> vague is a good thing here, I think)
> - As I noted in one of my emails, we don't have to worry about conflicts
> with RHSCL. New collections from RHSCL will be named with "rh-" prefix
> and thus won't conflict with python3X stacks.
> Since it doesn't seem that there was anything very problematic, let's
> discuss the points mentioned above after which I should be able to
> finalize the proposal and make it official (and then we could all get to
> building :)).
> I'm quite sure that we'll still hit some technical issues, e.g. macro
> naming for parallel stacks, but I believe we can discuss and solve these
> on the way.
A bikeshedding idea that may be controversial: aren't periods valid
characters within rpm package names? If so, can't we have the package
name be "python3.X" rather than "python3X". For that matter, dash
characters are valid in the name, so can't we call it "python-3.X"?
This might give e.g.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^
N V R
Though, for the core runtime e.g.
might seem harder to read than:
Apologies for the bikeshedding
Dave, thanks for the input.
Yes, it's technically possible to put both dashes and dots in package name, although
I'm sort of failing to see what the benefit of doing that would be. Is this for
readability only? For me, python34-something is more readable than the two variants you
propose (but I understand that it's a matter of personal preference and if majority
likes one of your variants, we can use it).