State of Python 3 as default in Fedora

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:15:34AM -0500, Dan Scott wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Miro Hrončok <mhroncok at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've just published a blogpost that summarizes what's going on with Python
> > 3 as default in Fedora.
> >
> > You can find it here:
> >
> > http://eng.hroncok.cz/2014/02/12/python3-fedora-default/
> >
> > Feel free to post any comments on my blog or here on the mailing list(s)
> 
> 
> Basic process question: do existing packages that currently offer only
> Python 2 support, but for which upstream has subsequently added Python 3
> compatibility, follow the normal new package / full review process if
> you're adding Python 3 support as a subpackage to the existing spec file?
> (I'm working on python-rdflib at the moment, which fits this criteria).
No, they don't. There's no mandate to do a full review when new subpackages
are added, and Python 3 packages are not treated differently here.

And there's really no need to in the case of Python 3 subpackages:
they are usually rather mundane duplicates of their Python 2
counterparts with some paths changes.

Zbyszek

> I would assume so, but didn't find an explicit statement one way or another
> in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python . As I suspect this will
> be a common case with a push for Python 3 as default, I'll be happy to add
> a corresponding statement to that page.