Bug 1645072 - Please provide a subpackage for python36
Summary: Please provide a subpackage for python36
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora EPEL
Classification: Fedora
Component: python3-requests
Version: epel7
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
low
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Orion Poplawski
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2018-11-01 11:16 UTC by Raphael Groner
Modified: 2018-11-07 05:24 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version: python3-requests-2.12.5-2.el7
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2018-11-07 00:49:10 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Bugzilla 1493946 0 unspecified CLOSED Please update to v6.7.1 2021-02-22 00:41:40 UTC

Internal Links: 1493946

Description Raphael Groner 2018-11-01 11:16:17 UTC
Description of problem:
Please provide a subpackage with a build against python36.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
-

How reproducible:
yes

Steps to Reproduce:
1. yum install python36-requests
2.
3.

Actual results:
no package found

Expected results:
python module requests properly installed for python36

Additional info:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pyvmomi/c/c8fe2937aaa1f50f74b30ce2670707ce53a347ea?branch=master

Comment 1 Orion Poplawski 2018-11-03 01:46:29 UTC
The first thing to decide is whether or not it's okay to update python34-requests from 2.12 to 2.20.  If not, it would be better to create a new python36-requests package.  I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with the history of python-requests myself to say.  Nothing explicit in the history.

Perhaps someone from infra-sig.org (python-requests maintainer) has some insight.

Comment 2 Raphael Groner 2018-11-03 05:40:58 UTC
IMHO python-requests is an essential package and might be expected to get merged into python core libraries with any further version.

Comment 3 Fedora Update System 2018-11-04 21:44:02 UTC
python3-requests-2.12.5-2.el7 python3-urllib3-1.19.1-4.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-4004d6feae

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2018-11-05 00:10:17 UTC
python3-requests-2.12.5-2.el7, python3-urllib3-1.19.1-4.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-4004d6feae

Comment 5 Kevin Fenzi 2018-11-05 19:15:19 UTC
Well, like anything in epel, we have to be careful. I don't off hand know of any breakage between those versions. 
I think we should try and avoid seperate packages where we can for python3.

Comment 6 Raphael Groner 2018-11-06 21:57:26 UTC
(In reply to Kevin Fenzi from comment #5)
> Well, like anything in epel, we have to be careful. I don't off hand know of
> any breakage between those versions. 
> I think we should try and avoid seperate packages where we can for python3.

What's the issue with having the dedicated python version in the name of the indiviual subpackage? That's fully in compliance with the packaging policies but I agree we've no official announcement for this.

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2018-11-07 00:49:10 UTC
python3-requests-2.12.5-2.el7, python3-urllib3-1.19.1-4.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 8 Kevin Fenzi 2018-11-07 00:57:49 UTC
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #6)
> (In reply to Kevin Fenzi from comment #5)
> > Well, like anything in epel, we have to be careful. I don't off hand know of
> > any breakage between those versions. 
> > I think we should try and avoid seperate packages where we can for python3.
> 
> What's the issue with having the dedicated python version in the name of the
> indiviual subpackage? That's fully in compliance with the packaging policies
> but I agree we've no official announcement for this.

right, there's nothing against it in the guidelines, I just think is adds to confusion. Then you have python-foo (from rhel), python3-foo (that only makes the 34 version) and python36-foo (that only makes the python36 version). If at all possible it would be best to keep the number of packages down. Additionally, when say there's a python37, the python3 package could move to that and coonfuse things more. :)

Comment 9 Raphael Groner 2018-11-07 05:22:59 UTC
(In reply to Kevin Fenzi from comment #8)
> (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Kevin Fenzi from comment #5)> right, there's nothing against it in the guidelines, I just think is adds to
> confusion. Then you have python-foo (from rhel), python3-foo (that only
> makes the 34 version) and python36-foo (that only makes the python36
> version). If at all possible it would be best to keep the number of packages
> down. Additionally, when say there's a python37, the python3 package could
> move to that and coonfuse things more. :)

Please consider to open a ticket about this issue. The current plan is to have a maximum of two python3 versions in EPEL. The dedicated wiki page is outdated anyways.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/EPEL7_Python3

Comment 10 Raphael Groner 2018-11-07 05:24:38 UTC
… Well, and that's another bug in rhbz to forget actual close reason/status.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.