Good day! I vote for the 2nd option, seems expensive at first time, but better in long terms. Thanks. On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Sascha Peilicke wrote:

On 06/13/2013 01:51 PM, Stephan Kulow wrote:

...

On 12.06.2013 13:16, Sascha Peilicke wrote:

...

Hi guys,

since the Python bunch had the discussion recently, I want to drop all python3 package _links in devel:languages:python and use their counterparts in devel:languages:python3 as devel packages for Factory from now on. This would include a number of chgdevel requests for Factory [1]. The idea behind to have only python2 packages in devel:languages:python. Currently, this project reached a size where it became tedious to use "zypper up".

However, we will continue to track spec files for both python versions at the old package location (d:l:p). It should be easier to keep spec files in sync this way and you can submit changes for both in a single submit request. So for the packager, this won't change much. If you add a python3 spec file, a project maintainer will branch it to devel:languages:python3 once your sr is accepted.

If we end up in far distant future where only python3 matters and the py2 maintenance burden isn't justified anymore, both projects can become independent of each other. For that we would simply remove _link files to d:l:p.

So if nobody objects, I'll do it this afternoon.

http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-packaging/2013-04/msg00200.html is still true

For the record, there are two options to resolve the matter:

1) Enhance factory-auto checker so that it knows about this special case 2) Separate d:l:p and d:l:p3 (no links / no sub-spec files)

Both solve the issue that "osc up" took ages in d:l:p. Unrelated to that, osc still has room for improvement here.

The other reason to remove python3-$FOO local links in d:l:p was a faster "zypper up", i.e. less builds / faster repo publish in the project. So while the 1) is indeed tempting, Adrian told me OBS will get the ability to build sub-spec files anyway. So 1) would only help short-term. Thus we can as well make the big leap and go with 2).

Separate projects will incur slight overhead for packagers and naturally, packages sharing a py2/py3 version (i.e. are present in both projects) can run out of sync. However, since d:l:p will be only be about stability in the future anyway and d:l:p3 is supposed to become the new hotness for future openSUSE releases, I'd say it's an acceptable trade-off. There are plenty of py2 pkgs which will never get a py3 version and there are more and more upstream packages that only care for py3. Thus the overhead will decrease over time.

It's also far easier to explain: "submit py2 stuff to d:l:p and py3 stuff to d:l:p3" than explaining all the source _links and develprojects in the current layout. -- Sascha Peilicke SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)

-- [ ]'s Aledr - Alexandre Gerente de T.I. - Equipe Exata T.I. 44 3029-6416 44 9116-3154 (Claro) 44 9986-5055 (TIM) www.exatati.com.br -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

On 06/14/2013 05:22 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Alexandre D. Rogoski wrote:

...

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Sascha Peilicke wrote:

...

On 06/13/2013 01:51 PM, Stephan Kulow wrote: For the record, there are two options to resolve the matter:

1) Enhance factory-auto checker so that it knows about this special case 2) Separate d:l:p and d:l:p3 (no links / no sub-spec files)

Both solve the issue that "osc up" took ages in d:l:p. Unrelated to that, osc still has room for improvement here. ... Good day!

I vote for the 2nd option, seems expensive at first time, but better in long terms.

Thanks.

I disagree. I don't maintain many packages, but the ones I do, I know having the spec files together makes perfect sense. I even have a script file to generate the py3 version out of an updated py2 (or apply spec patches from the py2 version into py3).

But couldn't you update your script to just commit the py3 spec into d:l:p3 / $your-pkg ?

Having them completely separate smells like it would create lots of "out-of-sync" trouble.

Yes, as I said. However, it also allows both to run at different speeds. for instance, not all py3 specs added to d:l:p actually work. But they block us whenever we want to submit sth. to Factory. We have a very healthy commmunity around Python in openSUSE, so issues are going to get fixed fast anyway. -- Sascha Peilicke SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org