Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On 3 July 2017 at 02:04, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 1 July 2017 at 21:42, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> On 1 July 2017 at 03:36, Adam Williamson wrote: >>> On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 12:07 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: Even if a 4.0

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On 1 July 2017 at 21:42, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 1 July 2017 at 03:36, Adam Williamson wrote: >> On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 12:07 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: >>> Even if a 4.0 does happen, the magnitude of the change relative to the >>> preceding 3.x

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On 1 July 2017 at 03:36, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 12:07 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> Even if a 4.0 does happen, the magnitude of the change relative to the >> preceding 3.x release is expected to be comparable to that between any >> given 3.x and

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 12:45:51AM +0200, Björn Persson wrote: >> Adam Williamson wrote: >> > Clearly what I meant was "any future non-backwards-compatible major >> > Python release". Maybe *right now* you

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

Alec Leamas wrote: > On a sidenote, I think the original Swedish proverb rather is > something like "Once is never, twice is once and three times is a > habit." That's not how I've heard it, but it's not like there's a standardization organization for proverbs. Björn Persson pgpXXjZ9FlZsy.pgp

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On 01/07/17 01:17, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 12:45:51AM +0200, Björn Persson wrote: Spot on. There is a Swedish proverb. I don't know whether an English version exists, but in translation it is: One time is no time; two times is a habit. Since the Python API

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 12:45:51AM +0200, Björn Persson wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > Clearly what I meant was "any future non-backwards-compatible major > > Python release". Maybe *right now* you don't expect there to be one, > > but I'm sure there was probably a point during Python 1's

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

Adam Williamson wrote: > Clearly what I meant was "any future non-backwards-compatible major > Python release". Maybe *right now* you don't expect there to be one, > but I'm sure there was probably a point during Python 1's lifetime at > which no-one expected there to be a backwards-incompatible

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > "AW" == Adam Williamson writes: > > AW> Right, that's a good point. *Why* exactly do we want to go to all > AW> the trouble involved in making a switchover from 'python-foo' > AW> meaning 'the Python 2 module called foo' to

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On Fri, 2017-06-30 at 12:07 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 30 June 2017 at 09:24, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 16:50 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > > > > > > "AW" == Adam Williamson writes: > > > > > > AW>

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On 30 June 2017 at 09:24, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 16:50 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> > > > > > "AW" == Adam Williamson writes: >> >> AW> Right, that's a good point. *Why* exactly do we want to go to all >>

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

> "AW" == Adam Williamson writes: AW> That seems like, frankly, quite a weak justification for all the AW> trouble that's involved in migrating the 'meaning' of python-foo AW> like this (and, as Smooge pointed out, potentially doing it *again* AW> for Python 4, if

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 16:50 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > > > > "AW" == Adam Williamson writes: > > AW> Right, that's a good point. *Why* exactly do we want to go to all > AW> the trouble involved in making a switchover from 'python-foo' > AW> meaning 'the

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

> "AW" == Adam Williamson writes: AW> Right, that's a good point. *Why* exactly do we want to go to all AW> the trouble involved in making a switchover from 'python-foo' AW> meaning 'the Python 2 module called foo' to meaning 'the Python 3 AW> module called foo'?

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 11:13 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 29 June 2017 at 10:44, Iryna Shcherbina wrote: > > > > > > > > Why would it stop building? > > By explicitly defining the dependency to be py2 one in your Python 2 > > package, you will just make sure it

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 11:08 +0200, Petr Viktorin wrote: > Would it be reasonable to do this in phases: first ask everyone to add > python2- provides, then ask everyone to use them? Yes, and in fact, we > already did that: the python2- prefix has been recommended in the > guidelines for a quite

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

First off, I really want to say that we should resist the idea that Red Hat product decisions should hold back Fedora's progress. This python-*/python2-*/python3-* mess has been with us for far too long, and I applaud the Python SIG for putting in the effort to try and get this regularized.

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On 29 June 2017 at 10:44, Iryna Shcherbina wrote: > > > > Why would it stop building? > By explicitly defining the dependency to be py2 one in your Python 2 > package, you will just make sure it will not start pulling Python 3 > dependencies in a few years when the switch

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 3:12 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: > Most packagers have enough problems with workload without piling on a > bunch of extra unnecessary vanity bollocks that provides absolutely > ZERO value. Agreed, the value is unclear to me as well. We already have

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On 06/29/2017 12:09 PM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote: On to, 29 kesä 2017, Petr Viktorin wrote: On 06/29/2017 11:12 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 2:39 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 16:21 +0200, Iryna Shcherbina wrote: 2) Using

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On to, 29 kesä 2017, Petr Viktorin wrote: On 06/29/2017 11:12 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 2:39 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 16:21 +0200, Iryna Shcherbina wrote: 2) Using `python-` instead of `python2-` in the dependencies

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On 06/29/2017 11:12 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 2:39 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 16:21 +0200, Iryna Shcherbina wrote: 2) Using `python-` instead of `python2-` in the dependencies for the Python 2 binary RPM [2]. I'm not

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 2:39 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 16:21 +0200, Iryna Shcherbina wrote: >> 2) Using `python-` instead of `python2-` in the dependencies for the >> Python 2 binary RPM [2]. > > I'm not sure this list is terribly useful,

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On 06/29/2017 04:20 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 12:11 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: On 29 June 2017 at 11:39, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 16:21 +0200, Iryna Shcherbina wrote: 2) Using `python-` instead of `python2-` in the

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On 06/29/2017 04:20 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 12:11 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: On 29 June 2017 at 11:39, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 16:21 +0200, Iryna Shcherbina wrote: 2) Using `python-` instead of `python2-` in the

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 12:11 +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 29 June 2017 at 11:39, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 16:21 +0200, Iryna Shcherbina wrote: > > > 2) Using `python-` instead of `python2-` in the dependencies for the > > > Python 2 binary RPM

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On 29 June 2017 at 11:39, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 16:21 +0200, Iryna Shcherbina wrote: >> 2) Using `python-` instead of `python2-` in the dependencies for the >> Python 2 binary RPM [2]. > > I'm not sure this list is terribly useful, because of

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On 29 June 2017 at 11:39, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 16:21 +0200, Iryna Shcherbina wrote: >> 2) Using `python-` instead of `python2-` in the dependencies for the >> Python 2 binary RPM [2]. > > I'm not sure this list is terribly useful, because of

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 16:21 +0200, Iryna Shcherbina wrote: > 2) Using `python-` instead of `python2-` in the dependencies for the > Python 2 binary RPM [2]. I'm not sure this list is terribly useful, because of the above. There are thousands of packages that do this, because the 'python2-'

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

Here are lists of packages that don't conform to the current Python package naming policy, and their maintainers: * Maintainers by Package [4] * Packages by Maintainer [5] The bad naming is blocking work to switch to Python 3. For more context, see [0]. If you are on the list, please check

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

Here are lists of packages that don't conform to the current Python package naming policy, and their maintainers: * Maintainers by Package [4] * Packages by Maintainer [5] The bad naming is blocking work to switch to Python 3. For more context, see [0]. If you are on the list, please check

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On 22 June 2017 at 12:54, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:25 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> 1. How to modify a package to explicitly declare it as "Python 2 only" >> (and the need for a "BuildRequires: epel-rpm-macros" to reliably get >> access

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On 23 June 2017 at 04:07, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > There are two downsides to this kind of declaration: > - python2-runtimedep[12] will be used until the switch to python3 as > default is made, which might be very long. Instead, we would prefer > packages to use

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:27:47PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 20 June 2017 at 12:44, Nick Coghlan wrote: > > On 20 June 2017 at 02:49, Przemek Klosowski > > wrote: > >> It seems to me that there are two kinds of Python packages affected by

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

> "IS" == Iryna Shcherbina writes: IS> Thanks a lot, that is helpful. There is also a pkgdb2client [0] IS> package that I've been looking into for this. You could run that tool in a loop, parse the result and generate the report, I guess, but it's also rather trivial to

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

> "IS" == Iryna Shcherbina writes: IS> Thanks a lot, that is helpful. There is also a pkgdb2client [0] IS> package that I've been looking into for this. You could run that tool in a loop, parse the result and generate the report, I guess, but it's also rather trivial to

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

To make this easy, I dug out an old script I had and cleaned it up. It's 'find-package-maintainers' and is available from https://pagure.io/fedora-misc-package-utilities Just feed it a list of source package names (on stdin or in a named file) and it will extract the owner lists from pkgdb for

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

To make this easy, I dug out an old script I had and cleaned it up. It's 'find-package-maintainers' and is available from https://pagure.io/fedora-misc-package-utilities Just feed it a list of source package names (on stdin or in a named file) and it will extract the owner lists from pkgdb for

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On 22 June 2017 at 12:54, Neal Gompa wrote: > The problem with our Python packaging is that we've never actually > *tried* to enforce a standardized scheme, so it's pretty much "guess > the package name" all the time. Is it Py? Is it python-? Is > it py? Is it ? Do we have py2

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:25 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 21 June 2017 at 13:01, Neal Gompa wrote: >> If we constrain ourselves to RHEL, then we're screwed until at least >> 2024. I personally do not see this as a strong enough reason to not >> fix our

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On 21 June 2017 at 13:01, Neal Gompa wrote: > If we constrain ourselves to RHEL, then we're screwed until at least > 2024. I personally do not see this as a strong enough reason to not > fix our Python packaging globally. If anything, this should be an > incentive for Red Hat

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

> "JLT" == Jason L Tibbitts writes: JLT> Before doing that, please post a list of packages and their JLT> maintainers to the devel list. Preferably you would post two JLT> lists: one in the form: JLT> package owner1 owner2 owner2 JLT> And another in the form JLT> owner

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

I'm actually revising the mass bug filing page at the moment. - J< ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

Iryna, could you draft a change? Of course, working on it. ___ python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

Iryna, could you draft a change? Of course, working on it. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On 06/20/2017 05:54 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: "IS" == Iryna Shcherbina writes: IS> The packages that violate the above-mentioned policies are being IS> tracked in portingdb [3] and we plan to start filling bugs soon. Before doing that, please post a list of

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On 06/20/2017 05:54 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: "IS" == Iryna Shcherbina writes: IS> The packages that violate the above-mentioned policies are being IS> tracked in portingdb [3] and we plan to start filling bugs soon. Before doing that, please post a list of

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 20 June 2017 at 12:44, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> On 20 June 2017 at 02:49, Przemek Klosowski >> wrote: >>> It seems to me that there are two kinds of Python packages

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On 20 June 2017 at 12:44, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 20 June 2017 at 02:49, Przemek Klosowski > wrote: >> It seems to me that there are two kinds of Python packages affected by this >> issue: some track the evolution of the ecosystem and make sure

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

> "IS" == Iryna Shcherbina writes: IS> The packages that violate the above-mentioned policies are being IS> tracked in portingdb [3] and we plan to start filling bugs soon. Before doing that, please post a list of packages and their maintainers to the devel list.

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On 20 June 2017 at 02:49, Przemek Klosowski wrote: > On 06/19/2017 10:50 AM, Iryna Shcherbina wrote: > > The reason behind the second change is that there are a lot of Python 2 only > packages having `python-xxx` in Requires, which will start pulling Python 3 >

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On 06/19/2017 10:50 AM, Iryna Shcherbina wrote: The reason behind the second change is that there are a lot of Python 2 only packages having `python-xxx` in Requires, which will start pulling Python 3 dependencies when we switch to Python 3 as default. This will most possibly cause a number of

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On 19/06/17 15:50, Iryna Shcherbina wrote: If you expect your package to work when we switch to Python 3 as default, then you should already switch it to Python 3 or provide a Python 3 subpackage and depend on `python3-xxx`. Well to do that I'll have to patch all upstream's scripts which is

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

The reason behind the second change is that there are a lot of Python 2 only packages having `python-xxx` in Requires, which will start pulling Python 3 dependencies when we switch to Python 3 as default. This will most possibly cause a number of unexpected issues, which is what we are trying

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

The reason behind the second change is that there are a lot of Python 2 only packages having `python-xxx` in Requires, which will start pulling Python 3 dependencies when we switch to Python 3 as default. This will most possibly cause a number of unexpected issues, which is what we are trying

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On 19/06/17 14:59, Iryna Shcherbina wrote: Recently, there were two important changes to Python packaging guidelines. The first one bans usingtheambiguous `python` prefix in binary RPM package names [1]. Thus you must explicitly definethePython version by using either `python2-` or

Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

Hi all, Currently, in Fedora package names, "python" without a version number generally means Python 2. We would like to make it mean Python 3, but to make that switch, we first need to make sure nothing uses unqualified "python". All packages should use the "python2-" or "python3-" prefix.

Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

Hi all, Currently, in Fedora package names, "python" without a version number generally means Python 2. We would like to make it mean Python 3, but to make that switch, we first need to make sure nothing uses unqualified "python". All packages should use the "python2-" or "python3-" prefix.