Oliver Kurz-2 wrote

On Monday, 10 April 2017 04:47:09 CEST Luigi Baldoni wrote:

...

Hi, I've noticed that some python3 packages I need are, in fact, python3-only and that some other cannot be unified at the moment, if ever.

Also with the expectation of a mass-conversion d:l:p3 has been a tad neglected lately, so I was wondering if the packages above could be rehomed to d:l:p.

Or perhaps it's too early?

The new python singlespec approach can support "python3-only" packages and therefore the package should be able to find a home in d:l:p. See https://en.opensuse.org/ openSUSE:Packaging_Python_Singlespec#Packages_for_single_Python_version for details

Last time I tried it didn't work. Also I refer to the "As of 2017-03-07, however, this is untested and probably broken." clause. Has the problem been fixed, to your knowledge? In any case, what to do about packages that can't be unified because they are developed elsewhere than d:l:p? Regards -- View this message in context: http://opensuse.14.x6.nabble.com/A-new-home-for-python3-packages-tp5084623p5... Sent from the opensuse-packaging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

Oliver Kurz-2 wrote

On Monday, 10 April 2017 07:24:52 CEST Luigi Baldoni wrote:

...

Oliver Kurz-2 wrote

...

...

Hi,

I've noticed that some python3 packages I need are, in fact,

On Monday, 10 April 2017 04:47:09 CEST Luigi Baldoni wrote: python3-only

...

and that some other cannot be unified at the moment, if ever.

Also with the expectation of a mass-conversion d:l:p3 has been a tad neglected lately, so I was wondering if the packages above could be rehomed to d:l:p.

Or perhaps it's too early?

The new python singlespec approach can support "python3-only" packages and therefore the package should be able to find a home in d:l:p. See https://en.opensuse.org/ openSUSE:Packaging_Python_Singlespec#Packages_for_single_Python_version for details

Last time I tried it didn't work. Also I refer to the "As of 2017-03-07, however, this is untested and probably broken." clause.

Has the problem been fixed, to your knowledge?

Many packages do work based on the singlespec recipes and this is merely a "disclaimer" because some packages for sure still don't yet fully work.

"Untested and probably broken" sounds like a somewhat strong disclaimer. In fact, I tried again a moment ago and couldn't make it work. Do you have a link to a working python3-only module packaged as singlespec? Oliver Kurz-2 wrote

...

In any case, what to do about packages that can't be unified because they are developed elsewhere than d:l:p?

I don't see a reason why the singlespec approach can not be used just because the package is developed elsewhere also I can not answer that question.

If the maintainers of said devel project won't/can't support the singlespec approach for the time being, I'd say it's a problem. So, in that case, would python3- packages be acceptable in d:l:p? Regards -- View this message in context: http://opensuse.14.x6.nabble.com/A-new-home-for-python3-packages-tp5084623p5... Sent from the opensuse-packaging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

On 04/12/2017 06:46 AM, Oliver Kurz wrote:

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 01:02:59 CEST Luigi Baldoni wrote:

...

Oliver Kurz-2 wrote

...

On Monday, 10 April 2017 07:24:52 CEST Luigi Baldoni wrote:

...

Oliver Kurz-2 wrote

...

On Monday, 10 April 2017 04:47:09 CEST Luigi Baldoni wrote:

...

Hi,

I've noticed that some python3 packages I need are, in fact,

python3-only

...

...

and that some other cannot be unified at the moment, if ever.

Also with the expectation of a mass-conversion d:l:p3 has been a tad neglected lately, so I was wondering if the packages above could be rehomed to d:l:p.

Or perhaps it's too early?

The new python singlespec approach can support "python3-only" packages

and

...

therefore the package should be able to find a home in d:l:p. See https://en.opensuse.org/ openSUSE:Packaging_Python_Singlespec#Packages_for_single_Python_version for details

Last time I tried it didn't work. Also I refer to the "As of 2017-03-07, however, this is untested and probably broken." clause.

Has the problem been fixed, to your knowledge?

Many packages do work based on the singlespec recipes and this is merely a "disclaimer" because some packages for sure still don't yet fully work.

"Untested and probably broken" sounds like a somewhat strong disclaimer. In fact, I tried again a moment ago and couldn't make it work. Do you have a link to a working python3-only module packaged as singlespec?

not at hand, sorry

...

Oliver Kurz-2 wrote

...

...

In any case, what to do about packages that can't be unified because they are developed elsewhere than d:l:p?

I don't see a reason why the singlespec approach can not be used just because the package is developed elsewhere also I can not answer that question.

If the maintainers of said devel project won't/can't support the singlespec approach for the time being, I'd say it's a problem.

So, in that case, would python3- packages be acceptable in d:l:p?

My simple guess would be 'no' because d:l:p has (or should have) the simple requirement to only accept new packages when they follow python singlespec. If there is no maintainer to support the single spec recipe, why should it be in d:l:p?

This depends greatly on the package, say it is a graphical PDF viewer for example, or any other GUI package if it is not designed to have any modules to share with other applications there is simply no need to convert it to single spec, in 5 years when the maintainer decides its right they can just swap the 3's to 4's at there choosing and be done. All the python-efl apps in X11:Enlightenment:Factory are like this and will probably stay that way because there is no need. Where as libraries that only currently build and support python3 I guess you can make a case that its ideal for them to swap to singlespec now in case we start supporting another python3 impl and that way porting to python4 would be slightly easier but I'm not sure that its a pressing enough issue that we should drop package X from openSUSE:Factory because its in d:l:p3 which will be removed at some point, and know one has put in the effort to convert to single spec, it would be nice if it was converted but for all intents and purposes it still will work fine atm. We probably instead should have a bigger focus on depreciating packages in d:l:p that only build with python2 and don't look like they will be migrated to 3. -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Simon Lees wrote:

On 04/12/2017 06:46 AM, Oliver Kurz wrote:

...

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 01:02:59 CEST Luigi Baldoni wrote:

...

Oliver Kurz-2 wrote

...

On Monday, 10 April 2017 07:24:52 CEST Luigi Baldoni wrote:

...

Oliver Kurz-2 wrote

...

On Monday, 10 April 2017 04:47:09 CEST Luigi Baldoni wrote: > Hi, > > I've noticed that some python3 packages I need are, in fact,

python3-only

...

> and that some other cannot be unified at the moment, if ever. > > Also with the expectation of a mass-conversion d:l:p3 has been a tad > neglected > lately, so I was wondering if the packages above could be rehomed to > d:l:p. > > Or perhaps it's too early?

The new python singlespec approach can support "python3-only" packages

and

...

therefore the package should be able to find a home in d:l:p. See https://en.opensuse.org/ openSUSE:Packaging_Python_Singlespec#Packages_for_single_Python_version for details

Last time I tried it didn't work. Also I refer to the "As of 2017-03-07, however, this is untested and probably broken." clause.

Has the problem been fixed, to your knowledge?

Many packages do work based on the singlespec recipes and this is merely a "disclaimer" because some packages for sure still don't yet fully work.

"Untested and probably broken" sounds like a somewhat strong disclaimer. In fact, I tried again a moment ago and couldn't make it work. Do you have a link to a working python3-only module packaged as singlespec?

not at hand, sorry

...

Oliver Kurz-2 wrote

...

...

In any case, what to do about packages that can't be unified because they are developed elsewhere than d:l:p?

I don't see a reason why the singlespec approach can not be used just because the package is developed elsewhere also I can not answer that question.

If the maintainers of said devel project won't/can't support the singlespec approach for the time being, I'd say it's a problem.

So, in that case, would python3- packages be acceptable in d:l:p?

My simple guess would be 'no' because d:l:p has (or should have) the simple requirement to only accept new packages when they follow python singlespec. If there is no maintainer to support the single spec recipe, why should it be in d:l:p?

This depends greatly on the package, say it is a graphical PDF viewer for example, or any other GUI package if it is not designed to have any modules to share with other applications there is simply no need to convert it to single spec, in 5 years when the maintainer decides its right they can just swap the 3's to 4's at there choosing and be done. All the python-efl apps in X11:Enlightenment:Factory are like this and will probably stay that way because there is no need.

Agreed, in fact the singlespec system doesn't even support this use-case. Packages must by named "python-foo", and openSUSE policy forbids packages like this from following that naming scheme.

Where as libraries that only currently build and support python3 I guess you can make a case that its ideal for them to swap to singlespec now in case we start supporting another python3 impl and that way porting to python4 would be slightly easier but I'm not sure that its a pressing enough issue that we should drop package X from openSUSE:Factory because its in d:l:p3 which will be removed at some point, and know one has put in the effort to convert to single spec, it would be nice if it was converted but for all intents and purposes it still will work fine atm.

As I said previously, I think the last step in the singlespec conversion process would be for these to be moved to d:l:p and have d:l:p3 deleted entirely. These last packages can then be eventually converted at everyone's' convenience but it it wouldn't be a pressing issue. Although of course it will become a pressing issue once we get pypy3 working.

We probably instead should have a bigger focus on depreciating packages in d:l:p that only build with python2 and don't look like they will be migrated to 3.

Why? If the package works, why should we do extra work to remove it? I can understand that we shouldn't do anything excessive to fix such packages once they break, (as long as there aren't potential security issue), but I also wouldn't actively remove them as long as they work and won't cause confusion (particularly with packages that have up-to-date forks). -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

Oliver Kurz-2 wrote

...

If the maintainers of said devel project won't/can't support the singlespec approach for the time being, I'd say it's a problem.

So, in that case, would python3- packages be acceptable in d:l:p?

My simple guess would be 'no' because d:l:p has (or should have) the simple requirement to only accept new packages when they follow python singlespec. If there is no maintainer to support the single spec recipe, why should it be in d:l:p?

Let me give you a specific example: python-stevedore links to Cloud:OpenStack:Factory which is not going to be converted at the moment. How do I avoid breaking other singlespec builds in d:l:p (except for Factory) wrt python3-stevedore? Regards -- View this message in context: http://opensuse.14.x6.nabble.com/A-new-home-for-python3-packages-tp5084623p5... Sent from the opensuse-packaging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org