[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Python 3.0



On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 09:49 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > > And what do you do when you require functionality that's not in Fedora?
> > > 
> > > Depends.  If it's outside the scope of Fedora, such as codecs, etc I
> > > certainly don't expect Fedora to fill that need.  If it's within the
> > > realm of Fedora, and it's not present yet I package it up myself.  If
> > > it's already in Fedora and it's lacking something I need, I work with
> > > upstream to get it in place so it will follow naturally to Fedora.
> > 
> > So you really rely on your ability to extend Fedora to make it do what
> > you want.  I understand the problems with the codecs, and expect that,
> > were it legal to do so, they would be included.  The problems stemming
> > from the need for a compat-python are a bit different.  Given the fact
> > that python breaks compatibility with itself rather badly on a regualar
> > basis, I suspect that your problems working with upstream developers are
> > going to increase, and Fedora's own in-house projects may very well need
> > a compat-python.
> 
> Well, two things:
> 
> 1) You asked what I do when Fedora lacks something _I_ need.  That has
> never included zope/plone or really any other python app.  So, at a
> personal level, I'm not really impacted here.  But my approach would
> not differ it I was.

That's laudable.  But, at some point, if enough of what you needed fell
outside of items included in Fedora you might want to ratchet things up
a notch.  Especially if some of those could be included in Fedora
without that much effort.

> 2) Fedora has quite a few in-house python projects and none of them
> have needed a compat package so far.  Whether that is because of
> internal whip cracking to port to newer python, or because people are
> just that motivated I have no idea.  I don't work on any of those
> projects.

Thus far, most of the python changes haven't broken compatibility at the
python source level.  It's been a different story with the low level
c/python api, which is what's impacted zope so much.  Now, however,
they're going to break compatibility at the python source level.

> All that being said, it is _extremely_ important to remember that just
> because it's not in Fedora doesn't mean it's bad.  If people need a
> compat python package, then they can by all means create one themselves
> and slap it into a third party repo for others to use.

Which has been done.  My concern is that the resistance to a compat
package at Fedora seems to be pretty much unfounded.  I've looked at
Bugzilla entries for python 2.4.x in FC6, as well as entries for some of
the compat-gcc pakages from the past.  If there's been abuse and
activity generated by past compat-gcc packages, I've found little
evidence in Bugzilla.  The activity for python 2.4.x has also been
minimal, so I don't see why you would suddenly expect a barrage of
action for the compat package.  If I've overlooked something, then by
all means, please let me know.

> Take Ignacio for example.  While I disagree that Fedora as a
> _distro_ needs a python3.0 alpha package at the moment, I applaud his
> efforts to get it packaged and shared.  I think that is a very
> worthwhile effort, and I'm glad he's done so.  I only wish something
> like that would have happened for zope/plone in the F7 timeframe. (And
> maybe it did, I just am not aware of it.)

It was tried.  As it stands, Zope and Plone, which were availabe in
Extras for FC6, aren't available directly, and probably won't be for F8.

Dave



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]