Because when I want to package an rpm, I have a single %build and %install in my spec, so my second call to configure will override the first, and then i will need to run make install. So the process would be result in something like
(from %build) configure PYTHON=/usr/bin/python2 make configure PYTHON=/usr/bin/python3 make (from %install) make install which wont work (unless we move make install to %build i guess). With this patch, a single configure would nail both pythons, and make install would install the relevant files to their correct location. (Please dont mind the syntax here, writing from a smartphone...) On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 5:52 PM, Mathieu Lirzin <m...@gnu.org> wrote: > Hello, > > Yuval Turgeman <yuv...@redhat.com> writes: > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Sandro Bonazzola <sbona...@redhat.com> > > wrote: > > > >> 2018-01-30 11:26 GMT+01:00 Yuval Turgeman <yturg...@redhat.com>: > >> > >>> I added 2 macros (AM_PATH_PYTHON2 and AM_PATH_PYTHON3) to support both > >>> python2 and python3 on the same system. It works in the same way that > >>> AM_PATH_PYTHON works (just a small wrapper around it). Please notice > that > >>> AM_PATH_PYTHON and AM_PATH_PYTHONx can't be called together. > >>> > >>> The motive for doing this is Fedora Packaging Guidelines for Python ( > >>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python) which requires a > >>> package to be built for both runtimes. > >>> > >> > >> Are you planning to use this for installing python2 and python3 > artifacts > >> in a single make install call instead of having to go through 2 runs of > >> configure / make / make install ? > >> > > > > Yes, the alternative to this is to run everything twice with a different > > `PYTHON=` value, unless I'm missing something and there's an easier way > > that would make this patch irrelevant. > > Could you explain why re-running the configuration phase with different > ‘PYTHON’ values does not fit your use-case? > > -- > Mathieu Lirzin > GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761 070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37 > >
