Bug 1406346

Summary: meld: meld-3.17.0-2.fc26 requires both Python 2 and Python 3
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Iryna Shcherbina <ishcherb>
Component: meldAssignee: Dominic Hopf <dmaphy>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: rawhideCC: cwickert, dmaphy, gilboad
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Fixed In Version: meld-3.17.0-3.fc26 Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-12-22 10:25:46 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 1285816    

Description Iryna Shcherbina 2016-12-20 10:34:13 UTC
The meld-3.17.0-2.fc26 RPM has both Python 2 and Python 3 dependencies:

$ rpm -qRp meld-3.17.0-2.fc24.noarch.rpm
python(abi) = 3.5

This software supports Python 3 [0], and the dependencies are already ported (python3-dbus, python3-cairo, python3-gobject). Is there any reason to keep Python 2 dependencies?

Except in very special circumstances, there is no need for one package
to drag in both Python stacks. There is a section on Requires in the Python RPM Porting Guide [1] which covers this issue.

Please split your package, or remove the stray dependencies.

If anything is unclear, or if you need any kind of assistance, you can
ask on IRC (#fedora-python on Freenode), or reply here. We'll be happy
to help investigating or fixing this issue!

[0] http://meldmerge.org/news.html
[1] http://python-rpm-porting.readthedocs.io/en/latest/applications.html#buildrequires-and-requires

Comment 1 Dominic Hopf 2016-12-20 12:28:14 UTC
Hi Iryna,

thanks very much for reporting this. There is no specific reason for keeping dependencies to Python 2, seems I've just overlooked something. I've built a new release which adjusts the dependencies you've mentioned:


I'd be glad if you'd had a look if that looks better now, obviously my Python packaging know-how doesn't seem that advanced… :-)

Comment 2 Iryna Shcherbina 2016-12-22 10:25:46 UTC
Hi Dominic,

thank you very much for a prompt response.
The change looks good, closing the bug.