On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Simon Lees
On 10/28/2016 08:01 AM, Todd Rme wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Simon Lees
> On 10/28/2016 05:05 AM, Todd Rme wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:51 PM, jan matejek <jmatejek(a)suse.com> wrote:
>>> hello packagers,
>>> i'm happy to announce that i have a macroset that works pretty well, if
>>> i say so myself :)
>>> Have a look at the d:l:python:singlespec repository  and the github
>>> repo  for details.
>>> The gist of it: it is now very possible to build packages for both
>>> python 2 and python 3, using a pretty straightforward set of macros. See
>>> spec files in the linked repository, and documentation on github.
>>> So far this only reliably works on python 2 and 3. It can work with pypy
>>> too, but pypy is not building so I can't test against it.
>> Some comments on the macros:
>> 1. I think the version number should be explicit in all cases. So it
>> should be "%have_python2", not "%have_python", and
>> "%have_pyp3", not "%have_pypy".
>> 2. Along those lines, I think pypy2 and pyp3 versions should be
>> available, especially with a lot of progress now happening in pypy3
>> thanks to mozilla funding it.
>>> 4. New policies for d:l:py
>>> If the transition goes smoothly, I'd like to use the opportunity to
>>> clean out the devel:languages:python project.
>>> One, d:l:py is collecting applications that happen to be *written in*
>>> Python, but have nothing to do with python development, and should
>>> instead be placed in other topically appropriate projects. We've had
>>> some discussions about dependencies only present in d:l:py, but here's
>>> policy proposal:
>> When was this ever not the case? There are packages like that which
>> haven't been updated in 4 or 5 years. I did some spot checks and the
>> other devel:languages:___ repos also have a wide variety of software
>> written in that language. What do you see as wrong with the current
> There is almost always a better repo that they could be in which is less
> confusing to users who care about what applications do rather then which
> language they live in. For example variety which is a cross desktop
> wallpaper fetcher and changer written in python lives in the
> X11:Utilites repo because its a Utility for X11 apps, similarly if the
> purpose of the application is to monitor servers we have a nice
> Server:Monitoring repo I believe.
The problem is that the distinction between "application" and
"library" is not very clear-cut with most python packages. In the
rare case where something is purely an application that happens to be
written in Python, then yes I suppose you are right. But more often
the "application" contains both an executable and a python module that
python scripts can make use of. What should we do in that situation?
For the pure applications, a bunch of those are python shells, python
IDEs, debuggers, or other development tools that are connected in some
way to the python version they were built with and thus need to have
both versions available.
These are probably both valid examples of things that are not libraries
that could stay.
That is almost all, if not all, of the "applications" in d:l:p.
have any specific examples of python-based packages in d:l:p or
d:l:p3 that you think shouldn't be there?
No I personally have not looked I was simply agreeing with the above
quoted statement "One, d:l:py is collecting applications that happen to
be *written in* Python, but have nothing to do with python development"
and agreeing that they should be moved to more appropriate locations
My point is that this tends to be a very blurry line with python. We
need some more specific rules to actually implement this sort of
for applications requiring dependencies only in d:l:py the simple
> policy should be anything added to d:l:py should also then be forwarded
> to openSUSE:Factory where it will hopefully get picked up for the next
> Leap release as well. If this is enforced the required deps will always
> be available for all repos and it won't be an issue.
Are you talking about all packages or only non-python packages?
Because there are a lot of niche python tools in d:l:p that I don't
think belong in openSUSE:Factory.
All packages, unless they are of no interest to anyone even those doing
python development. Users shouldn't need to add development repo's to
there systems especially ones like d:l:p where there is a high chance
that they can completely break there system by updating with it enabled.
So if its useful to any openSUSE users it should go in the distro if its
not there is probably a question of does it actually need to be there
still? Richard has been pushing this view far more then I but its a view
I agree with (you can watch his openSUSE conference talk).
There are certainly people who hold this view, but I have seen nothing
to suggest it is remotely close to a consensus view. I personally
cannot emphasize how strongly I disagree with this view, and how much
I think it would harm projects like d:l:p. If it becomes official
openSUSE policy, then certainly d:l:p will have to follow it. But I
am strongly opposed d:l:p implementing this policy on its own.
Especially since it would involve eliminating hundreds of useful
packages that our volunteers have been willing to package but aren't
willing to go through the often months-long process of getting
accepted into openSUSE:Factory. We simply don't have the manpower to
get every useful package into openSUSE:Factory, even if they all
belonged there (and I think many of them don't belong there).
While the legal review can take up to a month, although from personal
experience its gotten better of late (Even with the haskell development
project adding 1500 packages at once) It's not like its a month of hard
effort required. If something is packaged reasonably well to start with
and according to openSUSE's guidelines the amount of work required to
get it included is pretty minimal and any issues should be resolved
within 1 or 2 submit requests. If people would like help with this I and
others are willing to spend time helping them fix there issues.
Personally I think that packages in openSUSE development repo's should
be following openSUSE guidelines and packages that are not willing to do
that should be in some other sub repository like d:l:p:Playground but
i'm guessing others would disagree.