Created attachment 384503 [details] patch for building for python3 only python3 is now in rawhide, see http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-January/129185.html Attached is a patch against current CVS checkout, which builds for python3 *ONLY* on every distribution with %{?fedora} > 12, where currently the python3 package is build. I decided to *NOT* include a python3 subpackage, because nothing requires this directly any I doubt this is used with python2 very much. It's not a problem to ship it in a subpackage, but I just wouldn't to that. What's your opinion towards this? (This will then be the first package, that is build for python3 only :-) *yay* ) Koji builds: F-12: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1922772 F-13: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1922762 (The patch also changes %define -> %global in the first line)
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 13 development cycle. Changing version to '13'. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Ping.
Upstream, this software supports Python 3. Please provide a Python 3 package for Fedora. According to the Python packaging guidelines [0], 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 [1]. 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 entirely. 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! [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file
Hello Peter, Do you need any help adding Python 3 support to the RPM? If you need more instructions, a [guide] for porting Python-based RPMs is available. [guide] http://python-rpm-porting.readthedocs.org/en/latest/index.html
(In reply to Dominika Krejčí from comment #4) > Hello Peter, > > Do you need any help adding Python 3 support to the RPM? > > If you need more instructions, a [guide] for porting Python-based RPMs is > available. > > [guide] http://python-rpm-porting.readthedocs.org/en/latest/index.html Hello Dominika! Unfortunately I'm not interested in this. I see this not as a bug but rather as a feature request. This should be done upstream first. So please go to upstream, propose changes required for adding thisPython3 support, and then (and only then) I'd happy to apply it for Fedora package. So far I'm going to close this as a NOTABUG (since it's not a bug).
(In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #5) > (In reply to Dominika Krejčí from comment #4) > > Hello Peter, > > > > Do you need any help adding Python 3 support to the RPM? > > > > If you need more instructions, a [guide] for porting Python-based RPMs is > > available. > > > > [guide] http://python-rpm-porting.readthedocs.org/en/latest/index.html > > Hello Dominika! > Unfortunately I'm not interested in this. I see this not as a bug but rather > as a feature request. This should be done upstream first. > > So please go to upstream, propose changes required for adding thisPython3 > support, and then (and only then) I'd happy to apply it for Fedora package. > > So far I'm going to close this as a NOTABUG (since it's not a bug). Hi Peter, thank you for responding! I'd like to ask for clarification: Is this package not Python 3 compatible upstream? Because if the patch by Thomas Spura worked, then upstream must be Python 3 compatible. Or am I missing something? Thank you for your time!
(In reply to Tomas Orsava from comment #6) > > I'd like to ask for clarification: Is this package not Python 3 compatible > upstream? Because if the patch by Thomas Spura worked, then upstream must be > Python 3 compatible. Or am I missing something? I really don't know if it's compatible or not.
(In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #7) > (In reply to Tomas Orsava from comment #6) > > > > I'd like to ask for clarification: Is this package not Python 3 compatible > > upstream? Because if the patch by Thomas Spura worked, then upstream must be > > Python 3 compatible. Or am I missing something? > > I really don't know if it's compatible or not. Well, given that there already is a Python 3 patch for the spec file, could you try it? It would be a great contribution towards the future of Python in Fedora!
One last time: Hi, Peter! I want to apologize for the confusion, I finally got to investigating the provided patch more thoroughly and I found out that the project is indeed not Python 3 compatible, the patch was just pushing the code through the 2to3 utility. Thank you for your time, Tomas