On 4 Dec 2014 00:38, "Bohuslav Kabrda" <bkab...@redhat.com> wrote: > > So here are my proposals for changes in current guidelines [2]: > - In [3], it says "If the executables provide the same functionality independent of whether they are run on top of Python 2 or Python 3, then only one version of the executable should be packaged. Currently it will be the python 2 implementation, but once the Python 3 implementation is proven to work, the executable can be retired from the python 2 build and enabled in the python 3 package." - this should be changed to prefer Python 3
Agreed. > - (This is not really related to the switch, but more of a general remark) In [4], it says that "python 3 version of the executable gains a python3- prefix". This is IMO bad, since upstream projects tend to name the versioned binaries "foo-3.4, foo-3" or "foo3.4, foo3". We should accept one of these - I'm not really certain which one of them. I tried to discuss this several times on distutils-sig mailing list, but without reaching a consensus. Either way, prefixing with python3- doesn't make sense to me, because it's not similar to any upstream way and you don't find the binaries under their names using tab completion (e.g. foo<tab> doesn't tell you about python3-foo). Agreed. CPython & pip use the "foo3.4, foo3" convention, so that seems enough of a reason to use that convention by default. We may want a "unless upstream does it differently" caveat though. > - As for binaries/scripts in /usr/bin (assuming there are both python2 and python3 versions), the unversioned files should point to python2 version. This aligns with /usr/bin/python still pointing to python2. This also aligns with CPython & pip conventions. Between them, only "pyvenv" runs under Python 3 by default, and that's only because it doesn't exist in Python 2. > - Some time ago, I also put together a proposal for some larger changes in Python packaging [5], mostly in how the subpackages for different interpreters should be done. I opened an FPC ticket [6] to get some comments and it seemed that FPC was favorable. While I still think it'd be great to do this change, it'll require a significant effort and that is better spent helping upstreams to port to Python 3 ATM. So I'd also like to receive more comments on this proposal, although I think we should postpone it to F23 (or maybe even later). I haven't reviewed this part yet. Regards, Nick. > > Thanks for all your comments and further suggestions. > > Slavek > > > [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python_3_as_Default > [2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python > [3] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Guidelines > [4] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Naming > [5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/Py2to3GuidelineChanges > [6] https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/379 > _______________________________________________ > python-devel mailing list > python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel
_______________________________________________ python-devel mailing list python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel