On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:42 AM, jan matejek jmatejek@suse.com wrote:
On 24.8.2017 16:52, Todd Rme wrote:
There is another naming issue I wanted to bring up. More and more packages are dropping support for python2. However, other packages that support both python2 and python3 still depend on these packages. So dropping the python2 version entirely is not a good option.
So we need some way to handle the naming of these packages. The simplest way would be to stick with what we did in the past, using "python-foo" and "python3-foo". But this prevents us from using the single-spec macros and makes it impossible to support other python implementations down the road.
So my suggestion is to make the python3 package use the "python-foo" name, using singlespec macros with python2 disabled. The python2 package should be named "python2-foo", should not use singlespec macros, and should provide "python-foo = %{version}".
Does this sound reasonable to everyone?
+1 on using "python-foo" for singlespec package and "python2-foo" for the older version.
Unsure about the provides. With the python3-as-default, we might switch over to providing python-foo from python3 -- in order to capture over users asking for "python-foo". OTOH, there is still the option of disfavoring "python-foo" names altogether, in which case it possibly makes sense to explicitly provide them for backwards compatibility?
I think the best solution long-term would be disfavor "python-foo" in favor of "python2-foo", but have "python2-foo" provide/obsolete "python-foo".
I would be strongly against having "python3-foo" obsolete/provide "python-foo", that would break both packages and users own scripts.