Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (54 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] python single-spec progress, questions
  • From: Todd Rme <toddrme2178@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 17:31:55 -0400
  • Message-id: <>
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Simon Lees <sflees@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On 10/28/2016 05:05 AM, Todd Rme wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:51 PM, jan matejek <jmatejek@xxxxxxxx> 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 [1] and the github
repo [2] 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_pypy2" 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 a
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.

Do you have any specific examples of python-based packages in d:l:p or
d:l:p3 that you think shouldn't be there?

As 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.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
List Navigation
Follow Ups