Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (54 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] python single-spec progress, questions
Hello,

Am Donnerstag, 27. Oktober 2016, 14:35:11 CEST schrieb Todd Rme:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:51 PM, jan matejek wrote:

Finally, three, d:l:py is collecting non-python dependencies of
python modules. That should not be happening. Analogously to point
one, policy proposal: If your package depends on something that is
not appropriate for d:l:py, either get that dependency into
Factory, or your package is also not appropriate for d:l:py.

A lot of these are backports for older versions of openSUSE that
either have outdated versions of the library or lack the library
entirely. So yes, I agree if it really has non-Factory dependencies
it probably shouldn't be there. But I think the bigger problem is
that many of these are (or were) needed but are building for openSUSE
versions where they aren't really needed, or where the version they
were needed for is no longer supported. A cleanup of these is
certainly warranted. They should also probably be renamed (package,
not .spec file) to include the version of openSUSE they are needed for
so we can clean them up more easily later.

An (IMHO) easier way to handle this is:
- disable building those packages for factory, but keep the build for
released versions (42.x, 13.x) enabled
- if you know that for example 42.1 doesn't need this package from
d:l:py, feel free to also disable the build for 42.1
- whenever a release goes EOL, no longer build for this release
- when a package has no remaining build targets (see the "Monitor"
page), drop it

I'm using this method in my home repo (for backporting some packages
that are missing in older releases) and it works fine. I never tested
this in a repo with a large number of packages, but I'd expect it to be
useable there also (it's guaranteed to work on the technical side, the
only question is if it is maintainer-friendly).

1. The layout of the repositories. With single spec files, does
"devel:languages:python3" even make sense anymore? I think we should
phase it out.

Agreed.

2. Package naming. Might this be a chance to switch from using
python-foo to python2-foo?

That sounds like lots of (IMHO superfluous) package renames ;-)

Either way, I would strongly suggest pypy
packages using pypy2-foo and pypy3-foo from the beginning, rather than
pypy-foo.

No objections.


Regards,

Christian Boltz
--
Opensuse-Factory is mainly for systemd infights and KDE3 legacy
maintainence questions nowadays. I guess you chose the right list ;-)
[Ralf Lang in opensuse-programming]

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

< Previous Next >
List Navigation
Follow Ups
References