I wonder if the softwarecollections.org repos might be a better choice
for this. All the userspace tools already exist in 5, 6 and 7.
Pat
On 04/29/2014 08:22 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 04/29/2014 05:54 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Hi guys,
Orion has submitted a python34 package for EPEL and I'm going to
review them soon if no one beats me to it. In parallel with
getting that approved I'd like to ask about the general strategy
we'd like to take with maintaining python3 in EPEL.
Python3 is an evolving language. New 3.N releases bring new
features, bugfixes, and both backwards compatibility breaking and
backwards compatibility enhancing changes (For instance, 3.3
brought the ability to mark regular text strings with the "u"
prefix to match with python2.x. 3.5 will bring back formatting
methods for byte strings.)
...
I'd like to propose that we attempt to maintain 2 python3 releases
at any one time. We'll create python3.4 now. When python3.5 comes
out in 18 months (less since python3.4 has been out for several
months), we'll package that in addition. When python3.6 comes out
(3 years), we'll package that and retire python3.4.
Pluses: * This gives users some time to verify that their homegrown
applications continue to work with the newer python3 package that
we produce before the old one goes EOL. * This means that we're
only working on 3 versions of python3 at a time (the two we expect
users to use and the next version that we're tracking as upstream
works on finishing it). * This gives us a chance to update
frameworks, libraries, and other stacks of software built on top of
python3 at the same time as we create the new interpreter package.
So you could get python3.4 with Django-1.6.x and you could get
python3.5 with Django-1.8.x
Negatives: * Users will have to reverify and port apps written
against python3 to the new interpreter version sometime in the 3
year lifespan of the python3 package they originally wrote it
against. * Package maintainers who are creating packages that run
on python3 will need to submit new packages for python3.4,
python3.5, etc. * Users may have to port to both new versions of
python3 and to new versions of some libraries they depend on
(because we took the opportunity to update those libraries for the
new python3 interpreter stack).
So, I want to be explicit as to how we handle python3 modules in EPEL.
Originally I was hoping we could simply have python3.4 provide
python3 and maintainers could branch their current Fedora python
modules for epel7 and build as is resulting in python3-module packages
as in Fedora.
However, I don't see how we transition easily to the next python3
release. I suppose we could do a side tag and rebuild everything then
have a flag day release. Does this seem workable (I don't think so)?
If we're going to require having python34-module packages are we going
to require new reviews, or can we simply have people name them with
%package -n python34-module in the epel7 branch? Would we have people
maintain multiple versions at a time in a package? This seems like
the workable version. I'm afraid that requiring new review all the
time will be a serious impediment.
We'll have %{__python34} etc macros then too.
Alternatives: * Never retire the python3 packages. This leaves us
trying to support the release once upstream stops support. Since
new python3 releases are in demand, we'd probably end up trying to
maintain all of the python3 releases that came out between when
RHEL-N was released and when RHEL-N+1 releases (because maintainer
focus usually shifts to building packages for RHEL-N+1 then). *
Retire the python3 packages when upstream stops support. This
defers the pain for users (They can use a python3.N version for
about 5 years instead of about 3 years). However, it means that
we're maintaining 4-5 versions of python3 at a time instead of 2-3
What do people think? Is this something we can do within the
policies of EPEL? Does it make sense to go forward with this? Is
it better to go with one of the alternatives?
I like the plan of supporting 2 versions at a time. I'm willing to
defer deciding on what the next version should be till later. Perhaps
3.5 won't be all that compelling and we'll want to wait for 3.6.
Finally:
python34-3.4
or python3.4-3.4
or python-3.4-3.4
or python3-3.4-3.4?
Keep provides python(abi) = 3.4?
- --
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane or...@cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlNgUFwACgkQORnzrtFC2/ujzQCguem5bziFQQZzn1WfLPZaPbuy
adMAoMOmF2Al81HWqxCFGYJgBr5UZcjZ
=OMyV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
epel-devel mailing list
epel-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
--
Pat Riehecky
Scientific Linux developer
http://www.scientificlinux.org/
_______________________________________________
epel-devel mailing list
epel-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
