Re: Additional python34 components for epel7

[Orion Poplawski]

On 12/30/2015 12:16 AM, Denis Fateyev wrote:
> Actually, I've opened a bug against 'msgpack':
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290393
>
> What we actually need is to clarify and officially approve python3 epel
> proposal and guidelines, to start packaging things for epel7.
>
> I'm ready to help out with packaging and testing python34 things, since I need
> some now.

Some reviews are underway here:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=1294704&hide_resol...

Additional python34 components for epel7

[Orion Poplawski]

On 12/30/2015 10:00 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 12/30/2015 12:16 AM, Denis Fateyev wrote:
> > Actually, I've opened a bug against 'msgpack':
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290393
> >
> > What we actually need is to clarify and officially approve python3 epel
> > proposal and guidelines, to start packaging things for epel7.
> >
> > I'm ready to help out with packaging and testing python34 things, since I need
> > some now.
>
> Some reviews are underway here:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=1294704&hide_resol...

Copr -

https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/g/python/python3_epel7/

Additional python34 components for epel7

[Denis Fateyev]

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:22 AM, Orion Poplawski 
wrote:
> On 12/30/2015 10:00 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> > On 12/30/2015 12:16 AM, Denis Fateyev wrote:
> > > Actually, I've opened a bug against 'msgpack':
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290393
>
> ...
> > Some reviews are underway here:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=1294704&hide_resol...

If we just could work "the same SRPMS name" problem around ;-)
Healthy repos with the master branch orphaned [1] may look a little weird
to users...

Just think, maybe worth to include some info that "this package for epel
only" into package description, additionally?

[1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python3-setuptools/

Additional python34 components for epel7

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> > > > > "DF" == Denis Fateyev  writes:

DF> If we just could work "the same SRPMS name" problem around ;-)
DF> Healthy repos with the master branch orphaned [1] may look a little
DF> weird to users...

That is not abnormal for EPEL-only packages, though.  The dead.package
file in master should simply indicate that the package is EPEL-only.

- J<

Additional python34 components for epel7

[Avram Lubkin]

So what should package maintainers do? I modified a package to use
python3_pkgversion and it builds fine if with_python3 is set, but it
doesn't seem to be set in the EPEL 7 build environment. I noticed a couple
packages enable it by default. Is that what we should be doing? Or should
we just build it into python/python3_epel7 in copr for now, and it so how?

Avram

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III 
wrote:
> > > > > > "DF" == Denis Fateyev  writes:
>
> DF> If we just could work "the same SRPMS name" problem around ;-)
> DF> Healthy repos with the master branch orphaned [1] may look a little
> DF> weird to users...
>
> That is not abnormal for EPEL-only packages, though.  The dead.package
> file in master should simply indicate that the package is EPEL-only.
> J<
>
> python-devel mailing list
> [e-mail]
>
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[e-mail]....