#808 F36: New installation scheme of Python packages
Closed 2 years ago by bcotton. Opened 2 years ago by churchyard.

In Fedora 36, we have changed the implementation of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Making_sudo_pip_safe in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3.10/pull-request/63 -- this has some side effects that I'd like to describe in the release notes of Fedora 36. Most noticeably, there is a caveat that is likely to stay: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2026979

I'll work on this and supply a blurb for review.


I've drafted https://hackmd.io/@python-maint/BkqScKJW5 and would appreciate feedback and/or grammar fixes.

Metadata Update from @bcotton:
- Issue set to the milestone: F36

2 years ago

I'm doing review, fixing typos/grammar as I go. I'm adding [XXX] in places where I've made a bigger change/suggestion.

What I'm missing is at least one sentence about why the mechanism has been re-implemented. What good does it bring?

What I'm missing is at least one sentence about why the mechanism has been re-implemented.

I've intentionally avoided that but can add a blurb. (It's because distutils is going away and we needed to move the patch to a different module + to move closer to what might become the upstream standard.)

What good does it bring?

Not much really :D Mostly consistency (which is said somewhere in the text already: "The values now reflect the reality of where packages are actually going to be installed.")

What I'm missing is at least one sentence about why the mechanism has been re-implemented.

I've intentionally avoided that but can add a blurb. (It's because distutils is going away and we needed to move the patch to a different module + to move closer to what might become the upstream standard.)

Since we have to add a release note about possible breakage, it might be seen as a change for the worse, so I think one sentence that we had to do this because... would be helpful.

I finished the review, made a few changes but overall it looks good.

Since we have to add a release note about possible breakage, it might be seen as a change for the worse, so I think one sentence that we had to do this because... would be helpful.

See line 9 (or search for "This was changed because").

@pbokoc Do I need to send a PR or are you able to just take it from the hackmd pad?

Since we have to add a release note about possible breakage, it might be seen as a change for the worse, so I think one sentence that we had to do this because... would be helpful.

See line 9 (or search for "This was changed because").

Edited together on a video call, now the document as a whole LGTM!

@pbokoc Do I need to send a PR or are you able to just take it from the hackmd pad?

@bcotton Do you the answer to my question in the previous comment? The issues here seem to be... resting?

Either one works. The F36 branch exists now so you can open a PR, but if you'd rather not, I can put it in for you.

Well, since you volunteered to do it :)

@churchyard PR 816 has the content in what appears to be the right format (or at least close enough that we can fix it later if needed). Can you take a look and make sure it seems right? I didn't change much except for formatting and a couple of style/typo fixes.

Metadata Update from @bcotton:
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

2 years ago

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata
Related Pull Requests
  • #816 Merged 2 years ago