On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 12:23 PM, jan matejek email@example.com wrote:
On 24.8.2017 18:03, Todd Rme wrote:
I would be strongly against having "python3-foo" obsolete/provide "python-foo", that would break both packages and users own scripts.
I don't see how that breaks user scripts? Do we expect someone to rely on package names in a way that would also touch custom scripts?
They will break because their python2 dependencies will automagically be deleted and replaced by python3 versions.
As for breaking packages, that is true. OTOH, I will be doing a conversion run on Factory to replace all "python-foo" with a versioned require anyway. (I intend to first replace with "python3-foo", see what breaks, then revert to "python2-foo" where python3 is not supported)
I admit that i'm biased towards breaking things ;) Mainly for the sake of discovering *what exactly* breaks and if we actually need to have it.
OTOH, maybe some rpmlint and submission checks are sufficient for this purpose and we can keep old packages untouched.
A lot of packages are unsupported upstream. They will never support python3, and having to go through and modernize all those packages seems like a huge amount of work for little or no real benefit to anyone. I would rather just let them bitrot until they break and remove them then.