[EPEL-devel] Re: Additional python34 components for epel7

2016-01-19 Thread Avram Lubkin
So what should package maintainers do? I modified a package to use python3_pkgversion and it builds fine if with_python3 is set, but it doesn't seem to be set in the EPEL 7 build environment. I noticed a couple packages enable it by default. Is that what we should be doing? Or should we just build

[EPEL-devel] Re: Additional python34 components for epel7

2016-01-04 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
> "DF" == Denis Fateyev writes: DF> If we just could work "the same SRPMS name" problem around ;-) DF> Healthy repos with the master branch orphaned [1] may look a little DF> weird to users... That is not abnormal for EPEL-only packages, though. The dead.package file in

[EPEL-devel] Re: Additional python34 components for epel7

2016-01-04 Thread Denis Fateyev
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:22 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote: > On 12/30/2015 10:00 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote: > > On 12/30/2015 12:16 AM, Denis Fateyev wrote: > >> Actually, I've opened a bug against 'msgpack': > >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290393 > ... > > >

[EPEL-devel] Re: Additional python34 components for epel7

2015-12-30 Thread Orion Poplawski
On 12/30/2015 10:00 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote: > On 12/30/2015 12:16 AM, Denis Fateyev wrote: >> Actually, I've opened a bug against 'msgpack': >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290393 >> >> What we actually need is to clarify and officially approve python3 epel >> proposal and

[EPEL-devel] Re: Additional python34 components for epel7

2015-12-30 Thread Orion Poplawski
On 12/30/2015 12:16 AM, Denis Fateyev wrote: > Actually, I've opened a bug against 'msgpack': > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290393 > > What we actually need is to clarify and officially approve python3 epel > proposal and guidelines, to start packaging things for epel7. > > I'm