Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (54 mails)

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


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 reason its probably worth being part of this discussion is for
almost all libraries should be built for python2 + python3 (Unless
python2 is not supported upstream anymore). Where as applications should
only be built for one or the other.

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.

--

I have numerous packages (20?) I maintain that are c libraries at
their core, but have python binding sub-packages. I'm slowly making
them have both python- and python3- sub-packages.

They currently live in security:forensics (and factory).

Will they be able to leverage the proposed new macros? Or do they
have to be moved to d:l:py?

Is it current policy they should be there already?

I also have 4 or 5 dual python app / python library packages
(python-dfVFS, etc.) and one pure python app (python-plaso).

My preference is to leave all of the above in security:forensics.

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

< Previous Next >
List Navigation
Follow Ups