[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       opensuse-packaging
Subject:    Re: [opensuse-packaging] Re: A new home for python3 packages
From:       Todd Rme <toddrme2178 () gmail ! com>
Date:       2017-04-14 11:24:05
Message-ID: CADb7s=tXsMaLfGa8F1cZ=P_s73kV+GAWkZ2LQWZ30fAOkzCmUg () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Simon Lees <sflees@suse.de> 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:
>>>>>>>    Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've noticed that some python3 packages I need are, in fact,
>>>>>
>>>>> python3-only
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> neglected
>>>>>>> lately, so I was wondering if the packages above could be rehomed to
>>>>>>> d:l:p.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or perhaps it's too early?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The new python singlespec approach can support "python3-only" packages
>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>>> therefore the package should be able to find a home in d:l:p. See
>>>>>> https://en.opensuse.org/
>>>>>> openSUSE:Packaging_Python_Singlespec#Packages_for_single_Python_version
>>>>>> 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."
>>>>> clause.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>> because
>>>> 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
>>> approach
>>> 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. If
>> there is no maintainer to support the single spec recipe, why should it be in
>> d:l:p?
>>
>
> 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@opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]