[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: [scl.org] Python3 (always latest) community SCL
- From: Tomas Orsava <torsava redhat com>
- To: Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan redhat com>
- Cc: python-maint redhat com, sclorg redhat com
- Subject: Re: [scl.org] Python3 (always latest) community SCL
- Date: Wed, 3 May 2017 13:44:06 +0200
On 05/03/2017 09:13 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 12:27 AM, Tomas Orsava <torsava redhat com> wrote:
On 04/11/2017 10:24 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
I've been mulling this idea over for the past couple of weeks, and I'm
wondering if it might make sense to create a rolling "sclo-python3"
SCL, that's initially forked from
explicitly promises to rebase to new Python feature releases when they
So if people were happy to always run on the leading edge (even for
X.Y.0 releases), they could use "sclo-python3", but if they wanted to
stay on a particular X.Y release for a while, they would need to
switch to the downstream rh-pythonXY SCLs.
Remi, if I wanted to do that, where would I start?
https://github.com/sclorg-distgit is useful as a reference for
submitting changes to existing community SCLs, but it doesn't provide
any guidance on how to start a new one (and that info is also missing
from the wiki).
It would be great to have a state-of-the-art Python in Enterprise Linux, but
I think it would be better using the existing (though lacking maintenance)
Python 3 in EPEL  mechanism.
While installing and using SCLs isn't hard, I think an RPM packaged version
is still easier for both maintenance and usage and people can have EPEL
packages built against it as well. In addition the transition mechanism is
smoother, as two Python versions are coexisting during the transition
period, whereas the rolling SCL would just switch and everyone would have to
What would be the advantage of creating a rolling 'scl-python3' collection
over the EPEL mechanism ?
The main practical issue I see with the EPEL parallel installation
design is the part about updating "/usr/bin/python3" to new "stable"
In a situation when python3X is in EPEL and 3.X+1 is released
upstream, the following happens:
* python3X+1 package is created for EPEL ASAP and all extension
packages are built also for this new python3X+1 stack.
* When all packages are rebuilt for python3X+1, the old python3X stack
is retired after certain period. This period gives everyone enough
time to rebuild their packages while being as short as possible. There
is intentionally no hard limit here, we will approach this case by
* "/usr/bin/python3" belongs to the "stable" python3X stack. Switching
/usr/bin/python3 from python3X to python3X+1 happens shortly before
the end of transitional period (== before obsoleting python3X) and it
is announced on epel-devel.
Usage of "/usr/bin/python3" is discouraged in favour of using
While I thought this sounded reasonable at the time, it turns out to
have a lot of problems in practice, as it makes it hard for developers
to say "I just want to run on a pre-built version of the latest
upstream Python". Instead, they have to choose between:
* referring to python3.x in their own code, and having to update all
those references to switch to a new version
* keeping their "python3" references, and trusting that the originally
planned EPEL transitions will happen in a timely fashion
I agree that it's not exactly seamless, you can make a single boolean
macro in your spec file using which it will be switched to the
alternative Python, so it shouldn't be a significant maintenance burden.
And then regardless of the approach they choose, they have to rely on
either virtualenv or fiddling with the system level symlink to run
against an alternative Python 3 stack.
If I may ask, what do you mean by fiddling with the system level
symlink? I believe they can invoke `/usr/bin/python3.X` using the
Accordingly, the main benefit I see to the rolling community SCL is
that it makes "python3" load the SCL version when the SCL is enabled,
which *does* make it easy for developers to choose between running
against either the latest Python 3.x (by building on top of either
Fedora or the proposed community SCL), or against a specific Python
3.x version (by using the Red Hat SCLs). If the native EPEL builds are
retained, then they would be a *downstream* of the Red Hat SCLs, so
the complete maintenance flow would be:
- upstream release happens
- Fedora system Python and rolling Python 3 community SCL are updated
- Python 3.x Red Hat SCLs are updated
- EPEL Python 3.x stacks are updated
That approach is then a lot closer to the traditional RPM update flow
from upstream->Fedora->RHEL->CentOS, just modified to be
upstream->SCLo->RHSCL->EPEL since there isn't a system Python 3 stack
in RHEL & CentOS.
I do see the benefits of the added rolling SCL, though in my mind the
benefits are lessened by the pre-existence of Python 3 in EPEL, and thus
I'm not sure it's worth the added maintenance. However, that's only my
If we can find volunteers for the effort I'll be glad to lend a hand
with the creation of the SCL.
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]