Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (102 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] Re: A new home for python3 packages
  • From: Todd Rme <toddrme2178@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 07:24:05 -0400
  • Message-id: <>
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Simon Lees <sflees@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On 04/12/2017 06:46 AM, Oliver Kurz wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 01:02:59 CEST Luigi Baldoni wrote:
Oliver Kurz-2 wrote

On Monday, 10 April 2017 07:24:52 CEST Luigi Baldoni wrote:
Oliver Kurz-2 wrote

On Monday, 10 April 2017 04:47:09 CEST Luigi Baldoni wrote:

I've noticed that some python3 packages I need are, in fact,


and that some other cannot be unified at the moment, if ever.

Also with the expectation of a mass-conversion d:l:p3 has been a tad
lately, so I was wondering if the packages above could be rehomed to

Or perhaps it's too early?

The new python singlespec approach can support "python3-only" packages


therefore the package should be able to find a home in d:l:p. See
for details

Last time I tried it didn't work.
Also I refer to the "As of 2017-03-07, however, this is untested and
probably broken."

Has the problem been fixed, to your knowledge?

Many packages do work based on the singlespec recipes and this is merely a
"disclaimer" because some packages for sure still don't yet fully work.

"Untested and probably broken" sounds like a somewhat strong disclaimer.
In fact, I tried again a moment ago and couldn't make it work. Do you have
a link to a working python3-only module packaged as singlespec?

not at hand, sorry

Oliver Kurz-2 wrote

In any case, what to do about packages that can't be unified because they
are developed
elsewhere than d:l:p?

I don't see a reason why the singlespec approach can not be used just
the package is developed elsewhere also I can not answer that question.

If the maintainers of said devel project won't/can't support the singlespec
for the time being, I'd say it's a problem.

So, in that case, would python3- packages be acceptable in d:l:p?

My simple guess would be 'no' because d:l:p has (or should have) the simple
requirement to only accept new packages when they follow python singlespec.
there is no maintainer to support the single spec recipe, why should it be in

This depends greatly on the package, say it is a graphical PDF viewer
for example, or any other GUI package if it is not designed to have any
modules to share with other applications there is simply no need to
convert it to single spec, in 5 years when the maintainer decides its
right they can just swap the 3's to 4's at there choosing and be done.
All the python-efl apps in X11:Enlightenment:Factory are like this and
will probably stay that way because there is no need.

Agreed, in fact the singlespec system doesn't even support this
use-case. Packages must by named "python-foo", and openSUSE policy
forbids packages like this from following that naming scheme.

Where as libraries that only currently build and support python3 I guess
you can make a case that its ideal for them to swap to singlespec now in
case we start supporting another python3 impl and that way porting to
python4 would be slightly easier but I'm not sure that its a pressing
enough issue that we should drop package X from openSUSE:Factory because
its in d:l:p3 which will be removed at some point, and know one has put
in the effort to convert to single spec, it would be nice if it was
converted but for all intents and purposes it still will work fine atm.

As I said previously, I think the last step in the singlespec
conversion process would be for these to be moved to d:l:p and have
d:l:p3 deleted entirely. These last packages can then be eventually
converted at everyone's' convenience but it it wouldn't be a pressing
issue. Although of course it will become a pressing issue once we get
pypy3 working.

We probably instead should have a bigger focus on depreciating packages
in d:l:p that only build with python2 and don't look like they will be
migrated to 3.

Why? If the package works, why should we do extra work to remove it? I
can understand that we shouldn't do anything excessive to fix such
packages once they break, (as long as there aren't potential security
issue), but I also wouldn't actively remove them as long as they work
and won't cause confusion (particularly with packages that have
up-to-date forks).
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups