On 07/19/2013 01:56 PM, Andrew McNabb wrote:
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:24:22AM -0400, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
>
> From packaging point of view, this will probably require:
> 1) Renaming python package to python2
> 2) Renaming python3 package to python
> 3) Switching the %{?with_python3} conditionals in specfiles to %{?with_python2} (we
will probably create a script to automate this, at least partially)
Renaming the python package to python2 kind of makes sense, but renaming
the python3 package to python seems needlessly confusing. Wouldn't it
make sense to just keep python2 and python3 side by side without
ambiguity until some long future date when python2 disappears?
I wrote PEP 394 after Arch forced the issue (by switching the python
symlink to Python 3), and my preferred/suggested approach is to actually
declare "/usr/bin/python" the domain of the user/sysadmin, and have all
system packages use the qualified python3 naming.
Although, if PEP 432 comes to fruition, then we may be able to have a
shiny new pysystem (or some other name) that has all the defaults
flipped to lock things down (i.e. ignoring user settings) by the time
Fedora gets to Python 3 by default.
Also (switching hats back to the one in my sig). If the default
installation client changes, that could mean some fun for Beaker
(although I guess we already support alternate installation tools on the
older RHEL releases...). Manageable, but glad I'm not finding out about
this when someone files a bug complaining that they can't install a new
Fedora release in Beaker :)
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan
Red Hat Infrastructure Engineering & Development, Brisbane
Testing Solutions Team Lead
Beaker Development Lead (
http://beaker-project.org/)