We talked about this and came up with three decisions:

First and most importantly, the direction proposed here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/Py2to3GuidelineChanges seems fine. We were skeptical about both the note about moving the Provides at a later date and whether this would be able to accommodate other runtimes (because the code might not be portable enough... I was hoping that the ruby example would have proven the "compatible enough" concept but it hasn't yet) but those seem like they won't affect the draft of the guidelines. So if you produce a draft along the lines that you outlined we'll likely vote to approve. If you want to merge the things approved in https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/327 as well, that would be helpful.

The next two decisions were related to the naming proposal. We liked it but needed to make clear how it related to some corner-cases (notably, library bindings that presently name themselves libfoo-python).

info Proposal for language bindings to be named $language-$foo, not $foo-$language (old packages grandfathered but cleanups are welcomed) APPROVED (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0)

That means that the guidelines can use python2-foo and python3-foo even for library bindings shipped as a subpackage of the elf library package. Old packages are allowed to use the old form but if you're going to do a Fedora Change request to rename packages, you could make those cleanups at the same time (if you want). All new packages must use the python{2,3,}-foo form.

Replying to [comment:1 toshio]:

We talked about this and came up with three decisions:

First and most importantly, the direction proposed here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/Py2to3GuidelineChanges seems fine. We were skeptical about both the note about moving the Provides at a later date and whether this would be able to accommodate other runtimes (because the code might not be portable enough... I was hoping that the ruby example would have proven the "compatible enough" concept but it hasn't yet) but those seem like they won't affect the draft of the guidelines. So if you produce a draft along the lines that you outlined we'll likely vote to approve. If you want to merge the things approved in https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/327 as well, that would be helpful.

Well, I intentionally just "layed out" the options we will have with the Provides, but they're not meant to be part of this proposal itself - same applies to extending this approach to another runtimes like PyPy.

I will try to create a votable guidelines draft by the end of February. I'll also try to merge the changes from ticket 327, that should be relatively easy.

The next two decisions were related to the naming proposal. We liked it but needed to make clear how it related to some corner-cases (notably, library bindings that presently name themselves libfoo-python).

info Proposal for language bindings to be named $language-$foo, not $foo-$language (old packages grandfathered but cleanups are welcomed) APPROVED (+1:7, 0:0, -1:0)

That means that the guidelines can use python2-foo and python3-foo even for library bindings shipped as a subpackage of the elf library package. Old packages are allowed to use the old form but if you're going to do a Fedora Change request to rename packages, you could make those cleanups at the same time (if you want). All new packages must use the python{2,3,}-foo form.

Thanks. I'll put the naming part in the guidelines draft proposal. As for filing the change, I was hoping to include this into the "Python 3 as a Default" change proposal, if FESCo will agree with that - but let's work on the guidelines draft and leave this be for the moment.

Thanks!

What's the status here? I don't think we ever got a draft we could put up for a vote.

Due to lots of unfinished work on Py3 porting I have no time to work on this change, so I'm postponing it. This change is not necessary, it's only a nice-to-have and can be done in a later release. I'm assuming I'll get to this after F22 is released.

Well, let's leave it open. Feel free to add information at any time.

The packaging committee is still awaiting additional information before it can properly address your request. Please provide that within the next month or this ticket will be closed. (Of course, you can always reopen it if the situation changes) Thanks!

Hi, I think this should be closed, since it's superseeded by a better proposal at ​https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/475.

Thanks.