[EPEL-devel] Proposal for Python 3 packaging in EPEL 7

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 7 January 2015 at 04:05, Bohuslav Kabrda <bkabrda at redhat.com> 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 [1] 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
> >
> > [1] 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) [1]. 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.
>
>
Thank you for circling back on this. I was going to try and contact you
today about python26 which is orphaned in EPEL-5 and was going to see if we
could use the same logic for making a python27 tree for EL5 and EL6?


> Thanks.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Slavek Kabrda
>
> [1]
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_talk:Bkabrda/EPEL7_Python3#Sharing_Packages_between_Python_3_installations.3F
> _______________________________________________
> epel-devel mailing list
> epel-devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
>



-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/epel-devel/attachments/20150107/7333377b/attachment.html>