On 1/30/20 8:39 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 30. 01. 20 16:32, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> Folks -
> Looks like RHEL 8.2 will have python 3.8 in addition to python
> 3.6. From
> the 8.2 beta:
> Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 for x86_64 - AppStream Beta (RPMs)
> Name Stream Profiles Summary
> python27 2.7 [d][e] common [d] Python programming
> language, version 2.7
> python36 3.6 [d][e] build, common [d] Python programming
> language, version 3.6
> python38 3.8 [d][e] build, common [d] Python programming
> language, version 3.8
> Currently, %python_pkgversion is set to 3 in
> /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.python-srpm from python-srpm-macros.
> python3-devel is still provided only by python36-devel, so presumably all
> EPEL8 python packages will continue to be built against python 3.6.
> But I
> imagine that people will soon be asking for python 3.8 versions of EPEL
> packages. How can we provide those? Does this have to be done in some
> modular fashion - which seems to come back to the discussion of
> whether or not
> every package has to become its own module or whether to group them
> somehow. Or since both python modules are "default" modules and we can
> install both python36-devel and python38-devel at the same time,
> perhaps we
> can define the python3_other* macros again for python38 and just go
> that way?
The idea is that the versions fo stuff we build in RHEL for different
python versions is different and I'd like to keep that idea in EPEL as
well. Building a python38-foo package from it's own spec should work as
BR python38-bar etc...
Regular specfile follows.
You can even have a single specfile that build for different Python
version based on local override of %python_pkgversion in the buildroot.
Building both versions from single spec file---single build would
require a new set of macros, yes (or hardcoding stuff). However I'd not
call them python3_other* unless you want to end up with
python3_other_other* the next time this happens.
This along with some more info from rhel 8.2 beta yields more questions
for me. While I do agree that building the python38 packages from
separate specs probably is the best route (biggest reason being it
allows for updating of individual module versions) I'm hoping we can
brainstorm ways to make this less onerous on individual packagers.
Looks like python38-devel is a module in RHEL 8.2 that provides a bunch
of stuff needed for building modules (python38-devel, python38-pytest, etc):
Red Hat CodeReady Linux Builder Beta for RHEL 8 x86_64 (RPMs)
Name Stream Profiles Summary
python38-devel 3.8 [e] Python
programming language, version 3.8
Since this isn't a default module, does this again mean the python38
packages in EPEL 8 need to be modules as well? Or can we provide a
buildroot that enables this module?
My current pie-in-the-sky idea is that we could do:
- create a epel8-python38 branch for all of the python-* packages with
- epel8-python38 buildroot would enable python38-devel and install
python38-rpm-macros and define python3_pkgversion to 38.
- This would imply an epel8-python38 repo. It's possible that some
packages from epel8-python38 wouldn't be able to be installed unless the
python38-devel module was enabled.
- This might lead to an explosion of repos if we try to work around
other modules in RHEL8 like this (php 7.3, perl, ruby 2.6)
Otherwise I think we will need python38 packages in EPEL8 to be modular.
If the module route is the way to go, I really do think that we should
try to not have every package be its own module, though the other
extreme (all packages in one module) probably is untenable as well. In
any case, this will require a lot more coordination among packagers (not
necessarily a bad thing).
Manager of NWRA Technical Systems 720-772-5637
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 https://www.nwra.com/