On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 04:48:42PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 10:14:26PM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > Hello Fedora Python package maintainers! > > > > This is an announcement of a mass package renaming: > > Python 2 binary packages will be renamed to python2-*. > > > > This will happen soon after the F27 branching on August 15th. > > > > > > Currently ~1330 source packages already generate a binary package with > > the python2- prefix, and 835 remain to be updated. The spec files for > > approximately 740 packages will be renamed, and 95 will be left for > > fixing by maintainers or proven packagers. > > > > > > At the end of this e-mail are two lists of maintainers and packages: > > > > List 1. for those packages which will be taken care of by the mass remaining > > Patches: https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/pyrename/ > > > > Maintainers don't have to do anything. > > > Example: > > +%package -n python2-atpy > > +Summary: %summary > > +Requires: numpy python-astropy > > +%{?python_provide:%python_provide python2-atpy} > > +# Remove before F30 > > +Provides: ATpy = %{version}-%{release} > > This looks incomplete & broken to me. > > The Provides satisfies any dependancies on the old name, but you're > missing an Obsoletes to tell RPM the upgrade path. Trying to installing > the new python2-libvirt RPM on an existing system fails because it > clashes with libvirt-python. Good catch. Obsoletes: python-libvirt is generated by %python_provide, but I forgot to add Obsoletes: libvirt-python. Thanks, I'll fix this and other packages in the same situation.
> A further flaw in your script is that its changed libvirt-python to > python2-libvirt, but not changed libvirt-python3 to python3-libvirt, > so the naming inconsistency is worse than before your proposed change. Yeah, that was a conscious decision. In the draft I sent to fedora-devel last week I asked if python3 subpackages should be renamed, but nobody answered, so I assumed that people don't care that much either way. My motivation for not touching this right now was to limit the number of changes and potential for screwups. > Also the %_description stuff is just ugly Not the prettiest, but rpm just doesn't give us nice tools. The alternative is to repeat the description text three times, which is not only at least as ugly, but also harder to maintain. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
