[EPEL-devel] Re: Virtual packages providing python2-*

2016-02-27 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:50:42 -0600 Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > I'm actually just going to submit a review for a python2-setuptools > dummy package to take care of the most annoying case. If someone > really dislikes this idea enough to block that, then I guess I'll > find

[EPEL-devel] Re: Virtual packages providing python2-*

2016-02-24 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
> "TK" == Toshio Kuratomi writes: TK> The easiest thing to do if you want a single spec file for EPEL7 and TK> Fedora is to Requires: python-foo rather than python2-foo. Except that FPC would like to move away from this. That's the entire reason I've brought this up.

[EPEL-devel] Re: Virtual packages providing python2-*

2016-02-24 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > One annoying difference between packaging for Fedora and EPEL7 (and > probably older) is the fact that Python packages in Fedora are required > to provide "python2-foo" whereas many EL7 packages don't. This leads

[EPEL-devel] Re: Virtual packages providing python2-*

2016-02-24 Thread Peter
On 24/02/16 13:41, Peter wrote: > Maybe I missed something here. I just realized I completely missed the point of this, never mind my post above it's based on a complete mis-understanding. Peter ___ epel-devel mailing list

[EPEL-devel] Re: Virtual packages providing python2-*

2016-02-24 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
> "P" == Peter writes: P> I would be worried, though, that you'll have packages that were built P> against python that are now trying to pull in and possibly run on P> python2 unnecessarily, and possibly detrimentally if Red Hat suddenly P> decides to push python2

[EPEL-devel] Re: Virtual packages providing python2-*

2016-02-23 Thread Peter
On 24/02/16 13:09, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > JH> How should this be maintained going forward into 7.3+ in case RH > JH> bring more into base... > > They would be removed. If we set the version of the dummy package to > zero, they won't even get in the way if a RHEL package does start >

[EPEL-devel] Re: Virtual packages providing python2-*

2016-02-23 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
> "JH" == James Hogarth writes: JH> Do just to be clear from your wording you are talking about RHEL JH> python packages that are known as python-foo in RHEL rather than JH> python2-foo there, since there is no other python within base to JH> cause confusion? Right,

[EPEL-devel] Re: Virtual packages providing python2-*

2016-02-23 Thread James Hogarth
On 23 Feb 2016 22:00, "Jason L Tibbitts III" wrote: > > One annoying difference between packaging for Fedora and EPEL7 (and > probably older) is the fact that Python packages in Fedora are required > to provide "python2-foo" whereas many EL7 packages don't. This leads to >