Hello there,
To package some python3-based stuff I need 'msgpack', 'llfuse', 'Cython' modules built for Python 3.4 which is the current version of Python 3 in epel7.
Would it be reasonable to file a bug against 'python-msgpack', et al. in epel7 to adapt the package spec and get 'python34-msgpack' etc. packages, or there are any objections against that?
Thanks,
On 11/25/2015 09:06 AM, Denis Fateyev wrote:
Hello there,
To package some python3-based stuff I need 'msgpack', 'llfuse', 'Cython' modules built for Python 3.4 which is the current version of Python 3 in epel7.
Would it be reasonable to file a bug against 'python-msgpack', et al. in epel7 to adapt the package spec and get 'python34-msgpack' etc. packages, or there are any objections against that?
That would be the thing to do - except that for Cython this will require a new python3-Cython package for EPEL to be made and reviewed.
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 ready to help out with packaging and testing python34 things, since I need some now.
--- wbr, Denis. On Dec 30, 2015 6:12 AM, "Orion Poplawski" orion@cora.nwra.com wrote:
On 11/25/2015 09:06 AM, Denis Fateyev wrote:
Hello there,
To package some python3-based stuff I need 'msgpack', 'llfuse', 'Cython' modules built for Python 3.4 which is the current version of Python 3 in
epel7.
Would it be reasonable to file a bug against 'python-msgpack', et al. in
epel7
to adapt the package spec and get 'python34-msgpack' etc. packages, or
there
are any objections against that?
That would be the thing to do - except that for Cython this will require a new python3-Cython package for EPEL to be made and reviewed.
-- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion@nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com _______________________________________________ python-devel mailing list python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject....
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 ready to help out with packaging and testing python34 things, since I need some now.
Some reviews are underway here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=1294704&hide_resol...
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 guidelines, to start packaging things for epel7.
I'm ready to help out with packaging and testing python34 things, since I need some now.
Some reviews are underway here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=1294704&hide_resol...
Copr -
https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/g/python/python3_epel7/
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:22 AM, Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com 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
...
Some reviews are underway here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=1294704&hide_resol...
If we just could work "the same SRPMS name" problem around ;-) Healthy repos with the master branch orphaned [1] may look a little weird to users...
Just think, maybe worth to include some info that "this package for epel only" into package description, additionally?
[1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python3-setuptools/
"DF" == Denis Fateyev denis@fateyev.com 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 master should simply indicate that the package is EPEL-only.
- J<
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 it into python/python3_epel7 in copr for now, and it so how?
Avram
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III tibbs@math.uh.edu wrote:
"DF" == Denis Fateyev denis@fateyev.com 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 master should simply indicate that the package is EPEL-only.
- J<
python-devel mailing list python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject....
On 01/19/2016 05:30 AM, Avram Lubkin wrote:
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 it into python/python3_epel7 in copr for now, and it so how?
with_python3 is purely an individual python package setting - the build system does not set that. So you should enable it if you want.
The copr is just for testing new packages. Any member of the python sig FAS group should be able to submit builds there.
2016-01-19 16:18 GMT+01:00 Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com:
On 01/19/2016 05:30 AM, Avram Lubkin wrote:
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 it into python/python3_epel7 in copr for now, and it so how?
with_python3 is purely an individual python package setting - the build system does not set that. So you should enable it if you want.
Just thinking aloud but to encourage reuse of spec files between CentOS (which has no python34) and EPEL, it would be nice to keep the with_python3 boolean and test both %epel and %fedora macros definition rather than just dropping the setting.
H.
The copr is just for testing new packages. Any member of the python sig FAS group should be able to submit builds there.
-- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion@cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com
python-devel mailing list python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject....
python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Avram Lubkin -
Denis Fateyev -
Haïkel -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Orion Poplawski