Bug 1091657

Summary:	Review Request: python34 - Version 3 of the Python programming language aka Python 3000
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Orion Poplawski <orion>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	bkabrda, kevin, lupinix.fedora, mstuchli, package-review, petersen, pingou, tomspur
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2015-05-07 09:23:27 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Orion Poplawski 2014-04-27 03:07:03 UTC

Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python34.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/python34-3.4.0-2.fc20.src.rpm
Description:
Python 3 is a new version of the language that is incompatible with the 2.x
line of releases. The language is mostly the same, but many details, especially
how built-in objects like dictionaries and strings work, have changed
considerably, and a lot of deprecated features have finally been removed.

Fedora Account System Username: orion

This is targeted for epel7.

https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/orion/Python3_EPEL7/builds/

Comment 1 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda 2014-07-16 07:17:16 UTC

Few general comments/questions:
- Does introducing python34 mean that we will be creating python34-foo packages for EPEL?
- Does introducing python34 mean that your intention in future is to also maintain python35, python36, ...?

I'm not opposed to this, but we will probably need to standardize how extension packages should be packaged for python3X in EPEL. E.g. assuming we have python34 and python35, does that mean that we'll also need python3{4,5}-setuptools and the same for any other package? After several years, we could end up with several huge stacks of unmaintained packages and I have to admit I really don't like the idea. What are your thoughts on this?

Comment 2 Orion Poplawski 2014-07-16 17:05:40 UTC

(In reply to Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda from comment #1)
> Few general comments/questions:
> - Does introducing python34 mean that we will be creating python34-foo
> packages for EPEL?

I think that has to be the case.

> - Does introducing python34 mean that your intention in future is to also
> maintain python35, python36, ...?

Not particularly.  If sometime down the road, python34 has crusted over too much there might be a push to move to a new python3X.

> 
> I'm not opposed to this, but we will probably need to standardize how
> extension packages should be packaged for python3X in EPEL. E.g. assuming we
> have python34 and python35, does that mean that we'll also need
> python3{4,5}-setuptools and the same for any other package? After several
> years, we could end up with several huge stacks of unmaintained packages and
> I have to admit I really don't like the idea. What are your thoughts on this?

Yeah, this could be a big risk.  It's probably a good idea to reach out to more EL7 stakeholders and trying to build a consensus plan for pytho3 in EL7.

Comment 3 Kevin Fenzi 2015-04-30 14:37:00 UTC

So, we have a plan now I think... 

Do you, or someone else want to adjust this python34 for that plan?

I can try and review or find someone to.

Comment 4 Orion Poplawski 2015-04-30 16:14:00 UTC

I'm really hoping Slavek takes this over as he's been driving this lately.

Comment 5 Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda 2015-05-04 08:34:44 UTC

Actually, Matej Stuchlik took over from me. I'm CCing him on this bug.

Comment 6 Matej Stuchlik 2015-05-06 15:16:30 UTC

Spec URL: https://mstuchli.fedorapeople.org/python34.spec
SRPM URL: https://mstuchli.fedorapeople.org/python34-3.4.3-1.fc21.src.rpm

Here's it is, fixed up and rebased to 3.4.3.

I'll ask Aurelien Bompard if he would do the review.

Comment 7 Kevin Fenzi 2015-05-06 16:06:15 UTC

It might be better if you open a new review with you as submitter and close this one as a duplicate of that one. (Just to keep things clear who is submitting, etc). 

I'm also happy to review (but It likely wouldn't be super soon), and also happy to help co-maintain (along with infra-sig if you like).

Comment 8 Matej Stuchlik 2015-05-07 09:23:27 UTC

(In reply to Kevin Fenzi from comment #7)
> It might be better if you open a new review with you as submitter and close
> this one as a duplicate of that one. (Just to keep things clear who is
> submitting, etc). 

That's probably a good idea, opened 1219411 :) Hope you're fine with me closing this one Orion!

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1219411 ***