On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Robert Schweikert wrote:

On 09/12/2017 03:28 PM, Todd Rme wrote:

...

According to python packaging guidelines, python-based GUI applications should not have the "python-", "python2-", or "python3-" prefix. Ideally this wouldn't be a problem, since these are not dependent on the python version they use. However, a lot of them turn out to be either IDEs (e.g. Spyder), shells (e.g. jupyter's qtconsole or bpython), or other development tools that are dependent on the specific version of python they are built against.

Such packages are hard to use with singlespec macros. One option would simply be to change or not follow the package naming guidelines for such packages. Some packages, such as jupyter, do not follow them, but others like spyder do.

Another option would be to make the macros more useful with such packages. If we go this route, I see four changes that would be extremely helpful in this regard.

First, it would be nice if %python_subpackages allowed us to specify additional packages to manage. These would be packages named using "%package -n foo" that we nevertheless want to have multiple versions of. The macros would then create a set of packages "foo-%{python_bin_suffix}". So for example we might say %{python_subpackages spyder}. If we did that, we would get "spyder-3.6" and "spyder-2.7",

But is that really that useful?

For higher level stuff, even if they put things in site-packages I have started to just simply switch builds to python3. It loads the spec files with if condiftions but SLES 12 is going away in only 7 years ;) and then we'll be rid of Python 2.

Depends on the higher-level stuff in question. For things like IDEs, shells, and debuggers having both python2 and python3 versions is usually essential since they are usually tied to the python version they were built against. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 7:42 AM, jan matejek wrote:

hello,

On 12.9.2017 21:28, Todd Rme wrote:

...

First, it would be nice if %python_subpackages allowed us to specify additional packages to manage. These would be packages named using "%package -n foo" that we nevertheless want to have multiple versions of. The macros would then create a set of packages "foo-%{python_bin_suffix}". So for example we might say %{python_subpackages spyder}. If we did that, we would get "spyder-3.6" and "spyder-2.7", with Requires, Provides, Obsoletes, and %files all handled appropriately for the given python version.

I kind of like this, but don't quite understand how you would use it. You're presuming the package is called "spyder"? or "python-spyder"? what is the subpackage here?

So you would still have "Name: python-spyder" that would be handled normally (although it might not have a %files section). There would be a subpackage "%package -n spyder". The "spyder" %package, %description, %files, etc. would be replaced by "spyder-%{python2_bin_suffix}" and "spyder-%{python3_bin_suffix}".

...

Second, it would be nice if there was some way to handle "%files -f file". This is pretty much mandatory for -lang packages. So perhaps something as bare-bones as allowing %files %{python_files foo -f foo-%{$python_bin_suffix}.bar}, or something more advanced like %{python_files foo -f foo.bar} which automatically inserts %{$python_bin_suffix}

Trouble with %files -f is that there is no good way to process the filelist -- it is generated at build time, but singlespec macros run at preprocessing time. A solution might be having a separate step in the %install section that would generate/convert the separate filelists?

Let's use python-numpy as an example. My understanding is that at preprocessing time something like "%files %{python_files}" is converted to, for example, "%files -n python3-numpy". My idea is that something like "%files %{python_files -f foo.bar}" would be converted to "%files -n python3-numpy -f foo-%{python3_bin_suffix}.bar". So it would still be done at the preprocessing stage, as only the file name would need to be edited. The actual file contents would be handled by the normal %files macro.

...

Third, it would be nice if %python_clone handled .desktop files and appdata.xml files, or there was some alternative macro for these.

That probably can be done. Please file a bug at github.com/opensuse/python-rpm-macros

Will do.

...

Fourth, it would be nice if there was a singlespec-aware version of %find_lang and perhaps even %lang_package. %find_lang is easy enough to handle manually with grep, but I have not found a good solution for %lang_package.

There's an existing bug for %find_lang. %lang_package probably can be folded under that.

Okay -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 2:10 PM, jan matejek wrote:

On 13.9.2017 17:18, Todd Rme wrote:

...

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 7:42 AM, jan matejek wrote:

...

hello,

On 12.9.2017 21:28, Todd Rme wrote:

...

First, it would be nice if %python_subpackages allowed us to specify additional packages to manage. These would be packages named using "%package -n foo" that we nevertheless want to have multiple versions of. The macros would then create a set of packages "foo-%{python_bin_suffix}". So for example we might say %{python_subpackages spyder}. If we did that, we would get "spyder-3.6" and "spyder-2.7", with Requires, Provides, Obsoletes, and %files all handled appropriately for the given python version.

I kind of like this, but don't quite understand how you would use it. You're presuming the package is called "spyder"? or "python-spyder"? what is the subpackage here?

So you would still have "Name: python-spyder" that would be handled normally (although it might not have a %files section). There would be a subpackage "%package -n spyder". The "spyder" %package, %description, %files, etc. would be replaced by "spyder-%{python2_bin_suffix}" and "spyder-%{python3_bin_suffix}".

Why is the master package called "python-spyder"?

Wouldn't it be better, in this case, to change the logic for packages that aren't called "python-foo"? Like, "python-foo" converts to "python2-foo" and "python3-foo" whereas "spyder" converts to "spyder-2.7" and "spyder-3.7" ?

Is there a usecase where we want both of these behaviors? If yes, maybe this should be done by a single option switch to %python_subpackages.

I do have the vague idea that more explicit control of %python_subpackages is desirable, but ISTM i don't have enough usecases yet to formulate how that would work.

I guess either approach is really fine. My thinking was too keep things as close as possible to how things work currently.

...

Let's use python-numpy as an example. My understanding is that at preprocessing time something like "%files %{python_files}" is converted to, for example, "%files -n python3-numpy". My idea is that something like "%files %{python_files -f foo.bar}" would be converted to "%files -n python3-numpy -f foo-%{python3_bin_suffix}.bar". So it would still be done at the preprocessing stage, as only the file name would need to be edited. The actual file contents would be handled by the normal %files macro.

That's certainly possible, but what if the actual file contents need to be modified? In the most common usecase, I expect that the generated file would contain results for all flavors rolled together.

...of course, we can add what you're suggesting in the meantime and leave the modification question to the %install section as-is

Although it is likely that the contents will need to be modified, I think there is enough variability in the details that handling this in the %files section is probably too limiting. I would rather have that logic handled in %install. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Simon Lees wrote:

On 19/09/17 03:40, jan matejek wrote:

...

On 13.9.2017 17:18, Todd Rme wrote:

...

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 7:42 AM, jan matejek wrote:

...

hello,

On 12.9.2017 21:28, Todd Rme wrote:

...

First, it would be nice if %python_subpackages allowed us to specify additional packages to manage. These would be packages named using "%package -n foo" that we nevertheless want to have multiple versions of. The macros would then create a set of packages "foo-%{python_bin_suffix}". So for example we might say %{python_subpackages spyder}. If we did that, we would get "spyder-3.6" and "spyder-2.7", with Requires, Provides, Obsoletes, and %files all handled appropriately for the given python version.

I kind of like this, but don't quite understand how you would use it. You're presuming the package is called "spyder"? or "python-spyder"? what is the subpackage here?

So you would still have "Name: python-spyder" that would be handled normally (although it might not have a %files section). There would be a subpackage "%package -n spyder". The "spyder" %package, %description, %files, etc. would be replaced by "spyder-%{python2_bin_suffix}" and "spyder-%{python3_bin_suffix}".

Why is the master package called "python-spyder"?

Wouldn't it be better, in this case, to change the logic for packages that aren't called "python-foo"? Like, "python-foo" converts to "python2-foo" and "python3-foo" whereas "spyder" converts to "spyder-2.7" and "spyder-3.7" ?

Is there a usecase where we want both of these behaviors? If yes, maybe this should be done by a single option switch to %python_subpackages.

I would have thought the better question is do we really need 2 versions of python applications 1 built with each, as a user of spyder or any other python app why would I care if its built with python2 or python3 as long as it works.

The problem is that you cannot use spyder3 to do python2 development and vice versus. As long as the spyder upstream supports both python2 and python3 and we as a distro are providing both python2 and python3 in general, I think the spyder IDE should support both as well. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org