|
|
|
|
Hi,
I've noticed that some python3 packages I need are, in fact, python3-only
and that some other cannot be unified at the moment, if ever.
Also with the expectation of a mass-conversion d:l:p3 has been a tad neglected
lately, so I was wondering if the packages above could be rehomed to d:l:p.
Or perhaps it's too early?
Regards
|
|
|
On Monday, 10 April 2017 04:47:09 CEST Luigi Baldoni wrote:
> Hi,
> I've noticed that some python3 packages I need are, in fact, python3-only
> and that some other cannot be unified at the moment, if ever.
>
> Also with the expectation of a mass-conversion d:l:p3 has been a tad
> neglected
> lately, so I was wondering if the packages above could be rehomed to d:l:p.
>
> Or perhaps it's too early?
The new python singlespec approach can support "python3-only" packages and
therefore the package should be able to find a home in d:l:p. See
https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Python_Singlespec#Packages_for_single_Python_version
for details
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]
|
|
|
Oliver Kurz-2 wrote
On Monday, 10 April 2017 04:47:09 CEST Luigi Baldoni wrote:
> Hi,
> I've noticed that some python3 packages I need are, in fact, python3-only
> and that some other cannot be unified at the moment, if ever.
>
> Also with the expectation of a mass-conversion d:l:p3 has been a tad
> neglected
> lately, so I was wondering if the packages above could be rehomed to d:l:p.
>
> Or perhaps it's too early?
The new python singlespec approach can support "python3-only" packages and
therefore the package should be able to find a home in d:l:p. See
https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Python_Singlespec#Packages_for_single_Python_version
for details
Last time I tried it didn't work.
Also I refer to the "As of 2017-03-07, however, this is untested and probably broken."
clause.
Has the problem been fixed, to your knowledge?
In any case, what to do about packages that can't be unified because they are developed
elsewhere than d:l:p?
Regards
|
|
|
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Luigi Baldoni < [hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi,
> I've noticed that some python3 packages I need are, in fact, python3-only
> and that some other cannot be unified at the moment, if ever.
>
> Also with the expectation of a mass-conversion d:l:p3 has been a tad
> neglected
> lately, so I was wondering if the packages above could be rehomed to d:l:p.
>
> Or perhaps it's too early?
>
> Regards
In my opinion, this would be the last step in the conversion process.
Once all the packages we want as singlespec are converted to
singlespec, any that remain can be moved over to d:l:p and d:l:p3 can
be removed. If I recall correctly the consensus was that ultimately
d:l:p3 is going to be removed entirely.
That being said, I think we will ultimately want even most Python
3-only packages converted to singlespec so they can support other
python implementations like pypy3 in the future. Also, singlespec
packages will make it easier to do a python4 rename, which will
probably be needed in 3 or 4 years from now.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]
|
|
|
On Monday, 10 April 2017 07:24:52 CEST Luigi Baldoni wrote:
> Oliver Kurz-2 wrote
>
> > On Monday, 10 April 2017 04:47:09 CEST Luigi Baldoni wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I've noticed that some python3 packages I need are, in fact, python3-only
> >> and that some other cannot be unified at the moment, if ever.
> >>
> >> Also with the expectation of a mass-conversion d:l:p3 has been a tad
> >> neglected
> >> lately, so I was wondering if the packages above could be rehomed to
> >> d:l:p.
> >>
> >> Or perhaps it's too early?
> >
> > The new python singlespec approach can support "python3-only" packages and
> > therefore the package should be able to find a home in d:l:p. See
> > https://en.opensuse.org/> > openSUSE:Packaging_Python_Singlespec#Packages_for_single_Python_version
> > for details
>
> Last time I tried it didn't work.
> Also I refer to the "As of 2017-03-07, however, this is untested and
> probably broken."
> clause.
>
> Has the problem been fixed, to your knowledge?
Many packages do work based on the singlespec recipes and this is merely a
"disclaimer" because some packages for sure still don't yet fully work.
> In any case, what to do about packages that can't be unified because they
> are developed
> elsewhere than d:l:p?
I don't see a reason why the singlespec approach can not be used just because
the package is developed elsewhere also I can not answer that question.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]
|
|
|
Oliver Kurz-2 wrote
On Monday, 10 April 2017 07:24:52 CEST Luigi Baldoni wrote:
> Oliver Kurz-2 wrote
>
> > On Monday, 10 April 2017 04:47:09 CEST Luigi Baldoni wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I've noticed that some python3 packages I need are, in fact, python3-only
> >> and that some other cannot be unified at the moment, if ever.
> >>
> >> Also with the expectation of a mass-conversion d:l:p3 has been a tad
> >> neglected
> >> lately, so I was wondering if the packages above could be rehomed to
> >> d:l:p.
> >>
> >> Or perhaps it's too early?
> >
> > The new python singlespec approach can support "python3-only" packages and
> > therefore the package should be able to find a home in d:l:p. See
> > https://en.opensuse.org/> > openSUSE:Packaging_Python_Singlespec#Packages_for_single_Python_version
> > for details
>
> Last time I tried it didn't work.
> Also I refer to the "As of 2017-03-07, however, this is untested and
> probably broken."
> clause.
>
> Has the problem been fixed, to your knowledge?
Many packages do work based on the singlespec recipes and this is merely a
"disclaimer" because some packages for sure still don't yet fully work.
"Untested and probably broken" sounds like a somewhat strong disclaimer.
In fact, I tried again a moment ago and couldn't make it work. Do you have
a link to a working python3-only module packaged as singlespec?
Oliver Kurz-2 wrote
> In any case, what to do about packages that can't be unified because they
> are developed
> elsewhere than d:l:p?
I don't see a reason why the singlespec approach can not be used just because
the package is developed elsewhere also I can not answer that question.
If the maintainers of said devel project won't/can't support the singlespec approach
for the time being, I'd say it's a problem.
So, in that case, would python3- packages be acceptable in d:l:p?
Regards
|
|
|
On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 01:02:59 CEST Luigi Baldoni wrote:
> Oliver Kurz-2 wrote
>
> > On Monday, 10 April 2017 07:24:52 CEST Luigi Baldoni wrote:
> >> Oliver Kurz-2 wrote
> >>
> >> > On Monday, 10 April 2017 04:47:09 CEST Luigi Baldoni wrote:
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> I've noticed that some python3 packages I need are, in fact,
> >>
> >> python3-only
> >>
> >> >> and that some other cannot be unified at the moment, if ever.
> >> >>
> >> >> Also with the expectation of a mass-conversion d:l:p3 has been a tad
> >> >> neglected
> >> >> lately, so I was wondering if the packages above could be rehomed to
> >> >> d:l:p.
> >> >>
> >> >> Or perhaps it's too early?
> >> >
> >> > The new python singlespec approach can support "python3-only" packages
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> > therefore the package should be able to find a home in d:l:p. See
> >> > https://en.opensuse.org/> >> > openSUSE:Packaging_Python_Singlespec#Packages_for_single_Python_version
> >> > for details
> >>
> >> Last time I tried it didn't work.
> >> Also I refer to the "As of 2017-03-07, however, this is untested and
> >> probably broken."
> >> clause.
> >>
> >> Has the problem been fixed, to your knowledge?
> >
> > Many packages do work based on the singlespec recipes and this is merely a
> > "disclaimer" because some packages for sure still don't yet fully work.
>
> "Untested and probably broken" sounds like a somewhat strong disclaimer.
> In fact, I tried again a moment ago and couldn't make it work. Do you have
> a link to a working python3-only module packaged as singlespec?
not at hand, sorry
> Oliver Kurz-2 wrote
>
> >> In any case, what to do about packages that can't be unified because they
> >> are developed
> >> elsewhere than d:l:p?
> >
> > I don't see a reason why the singlespec approach can not be used just
> > because
> > the package is developed elsewhere also I can not answer that question.
>
> If the maintainers of said devel project won't/can't support the singlespec
> approach
> for the time being, I'd say it's a problem.
>
> So, in that case, would python3- packages be acceptable in d:l:p?
My simple guess would be 'no' because d:l:p has (or should have) the simple
requirement to only accept new packages when they follow python singlespec. If
there is no maintainer to support the single spec recipe, why should it be in
d:l:p?
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]
|
|
|
On 04/12/2017 06:46 AM, Oliver Kurz wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 01:02:59 CEST Luigi Baldoni wrote:
>> Oliver Kurz-2 wrote
>>
>>> On Monday, 10 April 2017 07:24:52 CEST Luigi Baldoni wrote:
>>>> Oliver Kurz-2 wrote
>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, 10 April 2017 04:47:09 CEST Luigi Baldoni wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've noticed that some python3 packages I need are, in fact,
>>>>
>>>> python3-only
>>>>
>>>>>> and that some other cannot be unified at the moment, if ever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also with the expectation of a mass-conversion d:l:p3 has been a tad
>>>>>> neglected
>>>>>> lately, so I was wondering if the packages above could be rehomed to
>>>>>> d:l:p.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or perhaps it's too early?
>>>>>
>>>>> The new python singlespec approach can support "python3-only" packages
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>>> therefore the package should be able to find a home in d:l:p. See
>>>>> https://en.opensuse.org/>>>>> openSUSE:Packaging_Python_Singlespec#Packages_for_single_Python_version
>>>>> for details
>>>>
>>>> Last time I tried it didn't work.
>>>> Also I refer to the "As of 2017-03-07, however, this is untested and
>>>> probably broken."
>>>> clause.
>>>>
>>>> Has the problem been fixed, to your knowledge?
>>>
>>> Many packages do work based on the singlespec recipes and this is merely a
>>> "disclaimer" because some packages for sure still don't yet fully work.
>>
>> "Untested and probably broken" sounds like a somewhat strong disclaimer.
>> In fact, I tried again a moment ago and couldn't make it work. Do you have
>> a link to a working python3-only module packaged as singlespec?
>
> not at hand, sorry
>
>> Oliver Kurz-2 wrote
>>
>>>> In any case, what to do about packages that can't be unified because they
>>>> are developed
>>>> elsewhere than d:l:p?
>>>
>>> I don't see a reason why the singlespec approach can not be used just
>>> because
>>> the package is developed elsewhere also I can not answer that question.
>>
>> If the maintainers of said devel project won't/can't support the singlespec
>> approach
>> for the time being, I'd say it's a problem.
>>
>> So, in that case, would python3- packages be acceptable in d:l:p?
>
> My simple guess would be 'no' because d:l:p has (or should have) the simple
> requirement to only accept new packages when they follow python singlespec. If
> there is no maintainer to support the single spec recipe, why should it be in
> d:l:p?
>
This depends greatly on the package, say it is a graphical PDF viewer
for example, or any other GUI package if it is not designed to have any
modules to share with other applications there is simply no need to
convert it to single spec, in 5 years when the maintainer decides its
right they can just swap the 3's to 4's at there choosing and be done.
All the python-efl apps in X11:Enlightenment:Factory are like this and
will probably stay that way because there is no need.
Where as libraries that only currently build and support python3 I guess
you can make a case that its ideal for them to swap to singlespec now in
case we start supporting another python3 impl and that way porting to
python4 would be slightly easier but I'm not sure that its a pressing
enough issue that we should drop package X from openSUSE:Factory because
its in d:l:p3 which will be removed at some point, and know one has put
in the effort to convert to single spec, it would be nice if it was
converted but for all intents and purposes it still will work fine atm.
We probably instead should have a bigger focus on depreciating packages
in d:l:p that only build with python2 and don't look like they will be
migrated to 3.
--
Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.netEmergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek
SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30
GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
|
|
|
Oliver Kurz-2 wrote
> If the maintainers of said devel project won't/can't support the singlespec
> approach
> for the time being, I'd say it's a problem.
>
> So, in that case, would python3- packages be acceptable in d:l:p?
My simple guess would be 'no' because d:l:p has (or should have) the simple
requirement to only accept new packages when they follow python singlespec. If
there is no maintainer to support the single spec recipe, why should it be in
d:l:p?
Let me give you a specific example: python-stevedore links to Cloud:OpenStack:Factory
which is not going to be converted at the moment. How do I avoid breaking other
singlespec builds in d:l:p (except for Factory) wrt python3-stevedore?
Regards
|
|
|
Simon Lees-3 wrote
We probably instead should have a bigger focus on depreciating packages
in d:l:p that only build with python2 and don't look like they will be
migrated to 3.
I'm sure that could be at least partly automated.
But what's the policy going to be? E.g. all python2 packages whose
upstream hasn't been updated in x years and for which pypi doesn't
list py2 compatibility as long as the same is true for the packages
depending on them should go?
Regards
|
|
|
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Simon Lees < [hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> On 04/12/2017 06:46 AM, Oliver Kurz wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 01:02:59 CEST Luigi Baldoni wrote:
>>> Oliver Kurz-2 wrote
>>>
>>>> On Monday, 10 April 2017 07:24:52 CEST Luigi Baldoni wrote:
>>>>> Oliver Kurz-2 wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, 10 April 2017 04:47:09 CEST Luigi Baldoni wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've noticed that some python3 packages I need are, in fact,
>>>>>
>>>>> python3-only
>>>>>
>>>>>>> and that some other cannot be unified at the moment, if ever.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also with the expectation of a mass-conversion d:l:p3 has been a tad
>>>>>>> neglected
>>>>>>> lately, so I was wondering if the packages above could be rehomed to
>>>>>>> d:l:p.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or perhaps it's too early?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The new python singlespec approach can support "python3-only" packages
>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>>> therefore the package should be able to find a home in d:l:p. See
>>>>>> https://en.opensuse.org/>>>>>> openSUSE:Packaging_Python_Singlespec#Packages_for_single_Python_version
>>>>>> for details
>>>>>
>>>>> Last time I tried it didn't work.
>>>>> Also I refer to the "As of 2017-03-07, however, this is untested and
>>>>> probably broken."
>>>>> clause.
>>>>>
>>>>> Has the problem been fixed, to your knowledge?
>>>>
>>>> Many packages do work based on the singlespec recipes and this is merely a
>>>> "disclaimer" because some packages for sure still don't yet fully work.
>>>
>>> "Untested and probably broken" sounds like a somewhat strong disclaimer.
>>> In fact, I tried again a moment ago and couldn't make it work. Do you have
>>> a link to a working python3-only module packaged as singlespec?
>>
>> not at hand, sorry
>>
>>> Oliver Kurz-2 wrote
>>>
>>>>> In any case, what to do about packages that can't be unified because they
>>>>> are developed
>>>>> elsewhere than d:l:p?
>>>>
>>>> I don't see a reason why the singlespec approach can not be used just
>>>> because
>>>> the package is developed elsewhere also I can not answer that question.
>>>
>>> If the maintainers of said devel project won't/can't support the singlespec
>>> approach
>>> for the time being, I'd say it's a problem.
>>>
>>> So, in that case, would python3- packages be acceptable in d:l:p?
>>
>> My simple guess would be 'no' because d:l:p has (or should have) the simple
>> requirement to only accept new packages when they follow python singlespec. If
>> there is no maintainer to support the single spec recipe, why should it be in
>> d:l:p?
>>
>
> This depends greatly on the package, say it is a graphical PDF viewer
> for example, or any other GUI package if it is not designed to have any
> modules to share with other applications there is simply no need to
> convert it to single spec, in 5 years when the maintainer decides its
> right they can just swap the 3's to 4's at there choosing and be done.
> All the python-efl apps in X11:Enlightenment:Factory are like this and
> will probably stay that way because there is no need.
Agreed, in fact the singlespec system doesn't even support this
use-case. Packages must by named "python-foo", and openSUSE policy
forbids packages like this from following that naming scheme.
> Where as libraries that only currently build and support python3 I guess
> you can make a case that its ideal for them to swap to singlespec now in
> case we start supporting another python3 impl and that way porting to
> python4 would be slightly easier but I'm not sure that its a pressing
> enough issue that we should drop package X from openSUSE:Factory because
> its in d:l:p3 which will be removed at some point, and know one has put
> in the effort to convert to single spec, it would be nice if it was
> converted but for all intents and purposes it still will work fine atm.
As I said previously, I think the last step in the singlespec
conversion process would be for these to be moved to d:l:p and have
d:l:p3 deleted entirely. These last packages can then be eventually
converted at everyone's' convenience but it it wouldn't be a pressing
issue. Although of course it will become a pressing issue once we get
pypy3 working.
> We probably instead should have a bigger focus on depreciating packages
> in d:l:p that only build with python2 and don't look like they will be
> migrated to 3.
Why? If the package works, why should we do extra work to remove it? I
can understand that we shouldn't do anything excessive to fix such
packages once they break, (as long as there aren't potential security
issue), but I also wouldn't actively remove them as long as they work
and won't cause confusion (particularly with packages that have
up-to-date forks).
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]
|
|
|
On 04/14/2017 08:54 PM, Todd Rme wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Simon Lees < [hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see a reason why the singlespec approach can not be used just
>>>>> because
>>>>> the package is developed elsewhere also I can not answer that question.
>>>>
>>>> If the maintainers of said devel project won't/can't support the singlespec
>>>> approach
>>>> for the time being, I'd say it's a problem.
>>>>
>>>> So, in that case, would python3- packages be acceptable in d:l:p?
>>>
>>> My simple guess would be 'no' because d:l:p has (or should have) the simple
>>> requirement to only accept new packages when they follow python singlespec. If
>>> there is no maintainer to support the single spec recipe, why should it be in
>>> d:l:p?
>>>
>>
>> This depends greatly on the package, say it is a graphical PDF viewer
>> for example, or any other GUI package if it is not designed to have any
>> modules to share with other applications there is simply no need to
>> convert it to single spec, in 5 years when the maintainer decides its
>> right they can just swap the 3's to 4's at there choosing and be done.
>> All the python-efl apps in X11:Enlightenment:Factory are like this and
>> will probably stay that way because there is no need.
>
> Agreed, in fact the singlespec system doesn't even support this
> use-case. Packages must by named "python-foo", and openSUSE policy
> forbids packages like this from following that naming scheme.
>
Well the actual python-efl package is called python3-efl :-) but the
applications are all just there own names ie the PDF Viewer called Lekha
is in a package called lekha.
>> Where as libraries that only currently build and support python3 I guess
>> you can make a case that its ideal for them to swap to singlespec now in
>> case we start supporting another python3 impl and that way porting to
>> python4 would be slightly easier but I'm not sure that its a pressing
>> enough issue that we should drop package X from openSUSE:Factory because
>> its in d:l:p3 which will be removed at some point, and know one has put
>> in the effort to convert to single spec, it would be nice if it was
>> converted but for all intents and purposes it still will work fine atm.
>
> As I said previously, I think the last step in the singlespec
> conversion process would be for these to be moved to d:l:p and have
> d:l:p3 deleted entirely. These last packages can then be eventually
> converted at everyone's' convenience but it it wouldn't be a pressing
> issue. Although of course it will become a pressing issue once we get
> pypy3 working.
>
>> We probably instead should have a bigger focus on depreciating packages
>> in d:l:p that only build with python2 and don't look like they will be
>> migrated to 3.
>
> Why? If the package works, why should we do extra work to remove it? I
> can understand that we shouldn't do anything excessive to fix such
> packages once they break, (as long as there aren't potential security
> issue), but I also wouldn't actively remove them as long as they work
> and won't cause confusion (particularly with packages that have
> up-to-date forks).
>
This was more a statement about longer term planning then anything else,
with the fact that python2 will go away and for planning sake we should
be thinking about a d:l:p with no python2 and giving it far more weight
then thinking about a d:l:p that is still mostly python2 or singlespec.
--
Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.netEmergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek
SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30
GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
|
|
Locked
signature.asc (499 bytes)