Bug 1241928
Summary: | Switch libtalloc to use python3 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Miro Hrončok <mhroncok> |
Component: | libtalloc | Assignee: | Miro Hrončok <mhroncok> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | 23 | CC: | asn, gdeschner, jhrozek, mhroncok, pviktori, rkuska, sgallagh, ssorce |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | libtalloc-2.1.3-1.fc23 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2015-09-08 08:23:59 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | 1245387 | ||
Bug Blocks: | 1014209 |
Description
Miro Hrončok
2015-07-10 12:40:18 UTC
Any chance for a reaction? Do you have anything against me doing this as a proven packager? Thanks (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #1) > Any chance for a reaction? Do you have anything against me doing this as a > proven packager? Thanks Sorry, I should have replied. Let me prepare a specfile patch, I'll submit it here for review. Actually, the patch: https://git.samba.org/?p=samba.git;a=commitdiff;h=cd6615ecbd43d53fa353a18bd6db2291b086de2d Has not been released in an upstream tarball yet it seems. Do you propose we carry the patch in Fedora? Wouldn't it be better to lobby upstream so that they release a new tarball? I tried to talk with Samba guys about release but they do releases once a year (they already did this year, shortly before they merged the python3 patch) and they won't release new version just because of Python3 support, (according to Simo). I've also talked with Stephen and he said that he is ok with carrying patch donwstream if it is merged in upstream and upstream don't plan to release new version. I am cc'ing Stephen for confirmation. Yeah, seems perfectly fine to me to carry patches from upstream early in Fedora. So far it looks like we need to backport at least: From 616dfae8ffa88bd6b8b1145bd9d75c5b873e7044 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Petr Viktorin <pviktori> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 14:22:22 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] buildtools: Add --extra-python configure option From 6f490000c6b233f275598a4680b2c49fcb69d35a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Petr Viktorin <pviktori> Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 17:50:57 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] buildtools: Add a helper to iterate through Python environments From fb5d9c3db17f4d40c15be7285edc296d14c69130 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Petr Viktorin <pviktori> Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 18:17:06 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] pytalloc: Build for two Python versions at once From cd6615ecbd43d53fa353a18bd6db2291b086de2d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Petr Viktorin <pviktori> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 14:07:09 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] pytalloc: Port to Python 3 A new tdb version with python3 support will be released today ... Please note I'm pretty much bogged down until the end of the month, so if anyone cal help backport the pytalloc patches, I'll be glad. Packaging the upstream tdb release will not take that much time, so I can do that. Andreas, tdb? The patches for that aren't reviewed yet. Did you mean talloc? Today, tdb, talloc and ldb were released. I'm already working on packaging. |