Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 1313932
coccinelle: Provide a Python 3 subpackage
Last modified: 2016-05-11 05:59:45 EDT
Upstream, this software supports Python 3. Please provide a Python 3
package for Fedora.
According to the Python packaging guidelines , software must be
packaged for Python 3 if upstream supports it.
The guidelines give detailed information on how to do this, and even
provide an example spec file .
The current best practice is to provide subpackages for the two Python
versions (called "Common SRPM" in the guidelines). Alternatively, if
nothing depends on your Python2 package, you can just switch to Python 3
It's ok to do this in Rawhide only, however, it would be greatly
appreciated if you could push it to Fedora 24 as well.
If anything is unclear, or if you need any kind of assistance with the
porting, you can ask on IRC (#fedora-python on Freenode), or reply here.
We'll be happy to help!
I think it'd be better for everyone if the Python team just went
in and made the changes. Apparently building twice and setting
PYTHON=/usr/bin/python3 the second time should be sufficient.
Created attachment 1148891 [details]
Python 3 patch for specfile
Copr link: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/dkrejci/coccinelle/build/175584/
Created attachment 1150970 [details]
Patch to port the specfile to Python 3
I polished Dominika's patch a bit. Specifically I've done away with the removal of the devel-file as we aren't sure at this point if it is needed or not. Better to live with an RPMlint warning.
Here's a Koji scratch build of the resulting SRPM: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13810091
Waiting only on ARM build.
Tomáš, Dominika, please check if everything works as expected
ARM build finished.
Created attachment 1152968 [details]
Patch to change shebang to Python 3
I checked it in mock and found out I forgot one shebang still pointing to Python 2. I attached a patch (against the current contents of the dist-git) that fixes the issue.
I apologize for the omission.
Here's a link to a Koji scratch build:
Thanks for fixing/implementing this.
We're glad to have helped, Richard!
Do you think you could test the package if it's working as expected?
I'm not as familiar with the package, but after some testing inside mock, everything looks good! Thanks everyone!