[Bug 526126] Review Request: python3 - Python 3.x (backwards incompatible version)

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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 #32 from Dave Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat.com>  2009-10-26 19:23:44 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #31)
> (In reply to comment #29)
> > (In reply to comment #26)
> > > Dave, I've downloaded your new specfile and taken a look at it.
> > > 
> > > 1) I love the description for __os_install_post.  It explains the problem
> > > clearly and is very helpful
> > Thanks.
> 
> Actually, I now think my description is wrong; I now think the definition of
> __os_install_post comes from /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/macros (from our downstream
> redhat-rpm-config rpm).
> 
> I'll send a patch to add a %{__python} argument there, which should cover
> building rpms on top of this one; they should be able to a
>   %define __python /usr/bin/python3
> and rpmbuild should then bytecompile .py files in those rpms with that binary.

I didn't like this approach, as it would restrict us to having all .py files
within one srpm build be for the same python implementation.

I've created a patch for rpmbuild which doesn't have this restriction, and it
thus can support e.g. both a python-foo and python3-foo subpackage emitted from
the same build.  I don't yet know if this is sane, but I don't want to rule it
out due to tool bugs.

See bug 531117 for the gory details.


I've also created an rpmlint test to verify timestamps and ABI versions of
.pyc/.pyo files (this is bug 531102).

Finally, I've patched "file" so it can identify Python 3 bytecode files (see
bug 531082).

(all of the above bugs along with this review are on a Python 3 tracker bug;
bug 530636).

> I don't think doing so covers the case of this core python3 package though, so
> maybe we still need the current workaround (we'd have to somehow define
> %{__python} to be the freshly-built python3.1, and set LD_LIBRARY_PATH etc,
> which I don't see how to do sanely)  

FWIW I think this is still true with my patch; IIRC "make install" does the
byte-compilation using the freshly built python binary; I just need to sort out
the timestamps.

-- 
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.