Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (54 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] python single-spec progress, questions
On 10/27/2016 10:51 PM, Todd Rme wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Christian Boltz <opensuse@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello,

Am Donnerstag, 27. Oktober 2016, 14:35:11 CEST schrieb Todd Rme:
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 ;-)

I don't think there will be lots of renaming. The names of the binary
packages should be handled by the macros, and the number of Python-2
only packages should be shrinking, more below.



The idea would be that the spec file would be named "python-foo.spec",
while the python2 subpackage created by the macros would be
automatically named "python2-foo" instead of "python-foo" as they now.
So the macros would handle the naming, and that is the case no matter
what naming scheme we choose. Only packages that aren't compatible
with the macros would need any additional work.


Agreed the macros should produce a python2-foo binary package. But also
we need to consider that there are probably still some packages that are
Python-2 only, although the number is getting smaller.

In any event I think we need to account for the following:

- packages that only build for Python-2
- packages that only build for Python-3

So my proposal for package names, meaning the names seen when looking at
d:l:p in the web UI:

- python2-foo
-> a package that produces only a python2-foo binary package
- python-foo
-> a package that may produce a python-foo and python2-foo binary
package or a python-foo package only

Later,
Robert

--
Robert Schweikert MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
Public Cloud Architect LINUX
rjschwei@xxxxxxxx
IRC: robjo

< Previous Next >
List Navigation
Follow Ups