> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 01:02:32PM -0800, Troy Dawson wrote:
> I'll say it once again, but why can't we just have
> %{python2_available} and %{python3_available} macros defined in the
> base system?And once again, what about %py3_build_expected? Proposed in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1636020 The most obvious argument against that is that it is not 100% bullet proof to cover all Fedora Python packages. But I don't think it is a problem in particular; there are _many_ (maybe the most of them) python packages that could use this. Pavel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
