On 07/19/2013 01:56 PM, Andrew McNabb wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:24:22AM -0400, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
>>
>> From packaging point of view, this will probably require:
>> 1) Renaming python package to python2
>> 2) Renaming python3 package to python
>> 3) Switching the %{?with_python3} conditionals in specfiles to
>> %{?with_python2} (we will probably create a script to automate this, at
>> least partially)
>
> Renaming the python package to python2 kind of makes sense, but renaming
> the python3 package to python seems needlessly confusing. Wouldn't it
> make sense to just keep python2 and python3 side by side without
> ambiguity until some long future date when python2 disappears?
I wrote PEP 394 after Arch forced the issue (by switching the python
symlink to Python 3), and my preferred/suggested approach is to actually
declare "/usr/bin/python" the domain of the user/sysadmin, and have all
system packages use the qualified python3 naming.
Although, if PEP 432 comes to fruition, then we may be able to have a
shiny new pysystem (or some other name) that has all the defaults
flipped to lock things down (i.e. ignoring user settings) by the time
Fedora gets to Python 3 by default.
Also (switching hats back to the one in my sig). If the default
installation client changes, that could mean some fun for Beaker
(although I guess we already support alternate installation tools on the
older RHEL releases...). Manageable, but glad I'm not finding out about
this when someone files a bug complaining that they can't install a new
Fedora release in Beaker :)
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan
Red Hat Infrastructure Engineering & Development, Brisbane
Testing Solutions Team Lead
Beaker Development Lead (http://beaker-project.org/)
_______________________________________________
python-devel mailing list
python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel
