On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 12:12 PM Petr Viktorin <pvikt...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 01/17/2018 12:38 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 01:02:32PM -0800, Troy Dawson wrote: > >> Hello, > >> Python3 will be in the next major RHEL release. I don't mean RHEL > >> 7.6, but with numbers higher than 7. > >> There are many, many packages with something like the following > >> > >> if 0%{?fedora} > >> %define with_python3 1 > >> %endif > >> > >> If you have something like that, please change it to something like > this. > >> > >> if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} > 7 > >> %define with_python3 1 > >> %endif > > > > I'll say it once again, but why can't we just have > > %{python2_available} and %{python3_available} macros defined in the > > base system? > > Mostly because we can't change RHEL. > > So, how about %{python2_missing} and %{python3_available}? Is that too > ugly and inconsistent? > > We don't need to change RHEL. We just need to add %{python2_available} to the epel-srpm-macros package. Or am I missing something? Yes, this will only work for packages built against EPEL 7 and not for third-party build-systems, but that's not something we have to care about, is it?
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org