[Bug 526126] Review Request: python3 - Python 3.x (backwards incompatible version)
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Oct 13 21:26:24 UTC 2009
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526126
--- Comment #8 from Andrew McNabb <amcnabb at mcnabbs.org> 2009-10-13 17:26:22 EDT ---
Dave, thank you very much for your insightful thoughts. I agree with you on
almost all points. The important thing for me is getting a working RPM that
can be installed alongside Python 2. As you noticed, a lot of things in my
specfile exist purely to be similar to Python 2 (although I changed anything
that seemed wrong or inapplicable). I wouldn't have any hard feelings over
which specfile is used. However, there are some areas where I think mine is
more "right" and other areas where I think ivazquez's is probably better.
Obviously, we should want to combine the best of both. Here are a few specific
thoughts:
1) I think that the name python3 is clearly preferable to python3000.
2) I'm confused by the .list thing. The .list files are really short, and I
don't see how they make it any more clear. In fact, I think they make the
specfile more difficult to read. Is this a standard way to do things?
3) The patch python-3.1.1-config.patch follows the approach of Python 2. This
is really important (whoever did Python 2 really knew what they were doing).
Python's default build configuration (without the patch applied) will fail
silently if a module can't be built. This is really evil. It means that if a
dependency is missing, then files will just disappear. This patch gets rid of
silent failures by explicitly specifying which modules must be built.
4) The patch python-3.1.1-lib64.patch ensures that Python is installed into
/usr/lib64 (as per Fedora's packaging guidelines). It looks like the
python3000 specfile does the same work with sed instead of a patch. I don't
know which approach is better, and I could be easily persuaded either way. I
picked to make a patch to more closely match the Python 2 specfile, but I can
definitely see some advantages to using sed.
5) I have no strong feelings on the package description or build dependencies.
However, I don't get the disparaging remarks about Tkinter. Not that I have
any attachment to Tkinter, but I'm not aware of it being considered in any way
deprecated.
6) The configure option --with-wide-unicode seems to be the correct spelling
for the option, where --enable-unicode=ucs4 is the old way to say it.
7) By the way, the python3000 package defines a python3000-libs subpackage, but
the python3 package just includes the .so file in the main package. When I
tried to have a python3-libs package, it ended up being a prerequisite for
python3 anyway, so I couldn't see the point in keeping it separate. However,
it's entirely possible that I did something wrong to make this happen. :)
ivazquez, do you have any thoughts on these issues? Is there any particular
reason that you didn't submit your package for review? Thanks for your work!
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list