On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 12:12 PM Petr Viktorin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 01/17/2018 12:38 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 01:02:32PM -0800, Troy Dawson wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >> Python3 will be in the next major RHEL release. I don't mean RHEL
> >> 7.6, but with numbers higher than 7.
> >> There are many, many packages with something like the following
> >>
> >> if 0%{?fedora}
> >> %define with_python3 1
> >> %endif
> >>
> >> If you have something like that, please change it to something like
> this.
> >>
> >> if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} > 7
> >> %define with_python3 1
> >> %endif
> >
> > I'll say it once again, but why can't we just have
> > %{python2_available} and %{python3_available} macros defined in the
> > base system?
>
> Mostly because we can't change RHEL.
>
> So, how about %{python2_missing} and %{python3_available}? Is that too
> ugly and inconsistent?
>
>
We don't need to change RHEL. We just need to add %{python2_available} to
the epel-srpm-macros package. Or am I missing something? Yes, this will
only work for packages built against EPEL 7 and not for third-party
build-systems, but that's not something we have to care about, is it?
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
