Hello all- I have some input from an "outsider's" perspective. I contribute, mostly package updates, to d:l:p, but don't have any special priveleges and have only spare time to give (there was about a year prior to Aug 2013 that I had almost almost no time for OpenSUSE contrib). On 10/14/2013 01:36 AM, Sascha Peilicke wrote:
Hi,
On Saturday 12 October 2013 14:19:57 you wrote:
Hi Sascha !
Is there any possibility we (all python maintainers) discuss our goals both python2 and python3 ?
We receive requests sometimes update and/or new packages which are Python3 compatible.
From my PoV, devel:languages:python (d:l:p) and devel:languages:python3 (d:l:p3) are only loosely connected. Of course I tend to update things in both projects and implement update-alternatives and other features here and there. So I guess asking submitters to also fix the other package is the simplest approach. Otherwise, I guess it's about proper tooling.
During the period of time I mentioned above, it appears that d:l:p and d:l:p3 have become two separate projects. I haven't done any updates for py3 pacakages since this became the case, mostly because I don't know the guidelines for doing the py3 work and have limited time. Is there some documentation I could read regarded py3 packaging specifically? Also I think from an experienced packager's poiny of view it would be nice to have a list of "gold star" d:l:p and d:l:p3 projects that represent how to do things: such as, is there a package you could point to that does the update-alternatives you mention in the right way?
Should we allow new packages for devel:languages:python or directly impose python3-only packaging ?
A lot of people currently have much more interest in d:l:p due to important software such as OpenStack. Therefore I wouldn't want to impose anything but rather ask people.
Another part of the reason for me not contributing any py3 work is that I have not to date been required to use py3 for any project I have been involved in professionally. Things I use day to day to a large extent drive my contributions. I think it would be OK to have a rule of thumb for only new packages in d:l:p3, but with good reason I think new packages should be added to d:l:p.
I mean we have a lot of packages to maintain, and to do it for both python2 and 3 is long and tedius.
In the long run, py3k will gradually replace py2k in openSUSE, that means if the critical mass is reached and most upstreams moved on, py2k pkgs will slowly fade from Factory. Meanwhile, some pkg upstreams already stopped caring for py2k, so their pkgs simply stay with the last working version. Currently it's more manual work, I agree.
I agree, but definitely in the long run. There are still some heavyweight packages with only py2 support (PIL, wxPython) and applications being made that rely on these packages. Perhaps other people are more focused on py3, whereas I am almost exclusively focused on py2. Hopefully the community will mirror the lifecycle of py2 and continue to provide enough resources to OBS to keep that line going while it is still needed.
On the other hand, updating a package is in 90% of all cases about downloading a tarball, adjusting the Version: tag and providing a changes entry. Source services meanwhile do a pretty good job in automating this. For Cloud:Openstack:Master (and siblings) we have many source services in use to automate everything. I started to do just this in devel:languages:go. But d:l:p is 20x larger so that may not be the way to go. So once I got some time, I'd be glad to improve py2pack for easier updating. The tricky part is the automated changes generation as there are a large variety of formats out there. As always, contributions are welcome :-)
Would be a nice GSOC target I would think, if work wasn't done before then. --Jason Craig -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org