+1

+1

+1 (Do we even need to vote on this? I'm tempted to just merge it, but maybe that needs to wait until later in the process.)

It is technically a change in the guidelines. I am obviously +1 for this change as well. That's +4. Let's wait for a majority here?

Does there need to be an explicit carve out for EPEL 8 or is that implied somewhere else?

Presumably if an exception is needed for some EPEL releases, that would be covered in the EPEL packaging guidelines which aren't maintained here. It is certainly easy to grab the old text from git and copy it over if that is needed.

While the removed Python 2 guidelines technically still apply to EPEL 8, I would strongly suggest we keep that information hidden.

The other guidelines are still available for reading. Should the 201x page explicitly say "this is still allowed in EPEL 8 because it is necessary"?

We probably should have discussed this at the meeting as it's still one vote short.

+1 ... merging.

Should the 201x page explicitly say "this is still allowed in EPEL 8 because it is necessary"?

Happy to accept such PR.

Thanks for merging.

Looks like this already exists in the EPEL guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-packaging/#_python

And it has a dead link now for the Python 2 guidelines. I'll remove it.

https://pagure.io/epel/pull-request/346