Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 2029963
Summary: | Review Request: python-pp - Parallel and distributed programming for Python | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | code, package-review |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2021-12-07 20:08:29 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 1276941 |
Description
Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD)
2021-12-07 16:49:34 UTC
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79686162 Another package you maintain, https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-ppft, is a fork of this one. It seems to be actively maintained, and provides the “ppserver” command and a compatible “pp” package. Adding “%py_provides python3-pp” to that package will make it provide python3-pp/python3.10-pp, but still not “python3dist(pp)”. It seems like patching dependency metadata from ppft to pp in dependent packages where required is probably a better approach than unretiring this package, especially given the multiple file conflicts that would result. Yeh, that makes a lot more sense. I've filed this now and I'll go see what we need to do to include all the necessary requires in ppft: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2030028 |