Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (68 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] The Python3 devel project will be devel:languages:python3
Good day!

I vote for the 2nd option, seems expensive at first time, but better
in long terms.

Thanks.

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Sascha Peilicke <speilicke@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 06/13/2013 01:51 PM, Stephan Kulow wrote:

On 12.06.2013 13:16, Sascha Peilicke wrote:

Hi guys,

since the Python bunch had the discussion recently, I want to drop all
python3 package _links in devel:languages:python and use their
counterparts in devel:languages:python3 as devel packages for Factory
from now on. This would include a number of chgdevel requests for
Factory [1]. The idea behind to have only python2 packages in
devel:languages:python. Currently, this project reached a size where it
became tedious to use "zypper up".

However, we will continue to track spec files for both python versions
at the old package location (d:l:p). It should be easier to keep spec
files in sync this way and you can submit changes for both in a single
submit request. So for the packager, this won't change much. If you add
a python3 spec file, a project maintainer will branch it to
devel:languages:python3 once your sr is accepted.

If we end up in far distant future where only python3 matters and the
py2 maintenance burden isn't justified anymore, both projects can become
independent of each other. For that we would simply remove _link files
to d:l:p.

So if nobody objects, I'll do it this afternoon.

http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-packaging/2013-04/msg00200.html is
still true


For the record, there are two options to resolve the matter:

1) Enhance factory-auto checker so that it knows about this special case
2) Separate d:l:p and d:l:p3 (no links / no sub-spec files)

Both solve the issue that "osc up" took ages in d:l:p. Unrelated to that,
osc still has room for improvement here.

The other reason to remove python3-$FOO local links in d:l:p was a faster
"zypper up", i.e. less builds / faster repo publish in the project. So while
the 1) is indeed tempting, Adrian told me OBS will get the ability to build
sub-spec files anyway. So 1) would only help short-term. Thus we can as well
make the big leap and go with 2).

Separate projects will incur slight overhead for packagers and naturally,
packages sharing a py2/py3 version (i.e. are present in both projects) can
run out of sync. However, since d:l:p will be only be about stability in the
future anyway and d:l:p3 is supposed to become the new hotness for future
openSUSE releases, I'd say it's an acceptable trade-off. There are plenty of
py2 pkgs which will never get a py3 version and there are more and more
upstream packages that only care for py3. Thus the overhead will decrease
over time.

It's also far easier to explain: "submit py2 stuff to d:l:p and py3 stuff to
d:l:p3" than explaining all the source _links and develprojects in the
current layout.
--
Sascha Peilicke
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend├Ârffer HRB 16746 (AG N├╝rnberg)



--
[ ]'s
Aledr - Alexandre
Gerente de T.I. - Equipe Exata T.I.
44 3029-6416
44 9116-3154 (Claro)
44 9986-5055 (TIM)
www.exatati.com.br
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups