This page is a draft only
It is still under construction and content may change. Do not rely on the information on this page.

Packaging Python modules for Python 3

I hope to add a parallel-installable Python 3 stack to Fedora 13.

See the feature page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Python3F13 and also this thread: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-October/msg00054.html

This requires us to come up with a sane way to package Python 3 modules, and this requires us to generalize our python packaging rules to support more than one python runtime.

The existing Python packaging guidelines are here: Packaging/Python

Multiple Python Runtimes

In Fedora we have multiple python runtimes, one for each supported major release.

Each runtime corresponds to a binary of the form /usr/bin/python$MAJOR.$MINOR

One of these python runtimes is the "system runtime". It can be identified by the destination of the symlink /usr/bin/python. Currently this is /usr/bin/python-2.6

Currently /usr/bin/python is actually a duplicate copy of the ELF file, rather than a symlink. This shouldn't cause any problems for packagers of python modules but we see this as [a bug] that needs fixing.

All python runtimes have a virtual provide for python(abi) = $MAJOR-$MINOR. For example, the python-3.1 runtime rpm has:

 $ rpm -q --provides python3 |grep -i abi
 python(abi) = 3.1

python modules using these runtimes should have a corresponding "Requires" line on the python runtime that they are used with. This is done automatically for files below /usr/lib[^/]*/python${PYVER}

The script /usr/lib/rpm/pythondeps.sh is what automatically emits "Requires" lines for files below /usr/lib[^/]*/python${PYVER}. The script needs reworking for python3. I've rewritten the script, but it isn't yet in our F13 rpm-build rpm. This is being tracked as [bug 532118].

For Runtime Packagers
Unlike the Requires lines, the "Provides" for each runtime are manually entered into the specfile for each runtime. In theory /usr/lib/rpm/pythondeps.sh would also automatically generate "Provides" lines for the runtime, but in practice rpmbuild only invokes it for files in the rpm payload identified as "python" by the file utility, and the runtime is an ELF binary, not a python script, hence it isn't passed. It's simplest to manually supply the Provides line, rather than change these innards of rpmbuild. See [bug 532118].

Byte Compiling

When byte compiling a .py file, python embeds a magic number in the byte compiled files that correspond to the runtime. Files in {%python_sitelib} and %{python_sitearch} must correspond to the runtime for which they were built. For instance, a pure python module compiled for the 3.1 runtime needs to be below %{_usr}/lib/python3.1/site-packages

Normally, this is done for you by the brp-python-bytecompile script. This script runs after the %install section of the spec file has been processed and byte-compiles any .py files that it finds (this recompilation puts the proper filesystem paths into the modules otherwise tracebacks would include the %{BUILDROOT} in them). The script determines which interpreter to byte compile the module with by following these steps:

what directory is the module installed in? If it's /usr/lib/pythonX.Y, then pythonX.Y is used to byte compile the module. If pythonX.Y is not installed, then an error is returned and the rpm build process will exit on an error so remember to BuildRequire the proper python package.
the script interpreter defined in __python is used to compile the modules. This defaults to the latest python2 version on Fedora. If you need to compile this module for python3, set it to /usr/bin/python3 instead. Like this:
```
%global __python %{__python3}
```
This step is useful when you have a python3 application that's installing a private module into its own directory. For instance, if the foobar application installs a module for use only by the command line application in %{_datadir}/foobar. Since these files are not in one of the python3 library paths (like /usr/lib/python3.1) you have to set %{__python} manually to tell brp-python-bytecompile what python interpreter to byte compile for.

These settings are enough to properly byte compile any package that only builds python modules (in %{python_sitelib} or %{python_sitearch}) or builds for only a single python interpreter. However, if the application you're packaging needs to build with both python2 and python3 and install into a private module directory (perhaps because it provides one utility written in python2 and a second utility written in python3) then you need to do this manually. Here's a sample spec file snippet that shows what to do:

# Turn off the brp-python-bytecompile script
%global brp_python_bytecompile %{nil}
# Buildrequire both python2 and python3
BuildRequires: python-devel python3-devel
[...]

%install
# Installs a python2 private module into %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/mypackage/foo
# and installs a python3 private module into %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/mypackage/bar
make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}

# Manually invoke the python byte compile macro for each path that needs byte
# compilation.
%{py_byte_compile} /usr/bin/python2 %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/mypackage/foo
%{py_byte_compile} /usr/bin/python3 %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/mypackage/bar

Python modules for non-standard runtimes

Naming

To be added to the Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28python_modules.29

Addon Packages (python3 modules)

An rpm with a python prefix or suffix means a python2 rpm so we need a different prefix to denote python3 packages. For this, we use python3. We have two constraints that the python2 packages don't operate under:

We need to be clear about these modules being for python3 so we don't have an exception for packages that already have "py" in their names like python2 modules.
Consumers of the packages need to be able to find them even if they don't know whether they're using the python2 or python3 version.

So all python3 modules MUST have python3 in their name. Other than that, the module must be in the same format as the python2 package. Some examples:

Fedora python 2 package	Upstream name	Proposed python 3 package name
python-lxml	lxml	python3-lxml
pygtk2	pygtk	python3-pygtk
gstreamer-python	gst-python	gstreamer-python3
gnome-python2	gnome-python	gnome-python3
rpm-python	(part of rpm)	rpm-python3

Common SRPM vs split SRPMs

FPC Guidance
if i were writing that section, i would probably say that if the python 2 and 3 bindings exist only in the same tarball, they should be generated from a single SRPM. If the python 3 bindings are part of a separate upstream source package, they should be in their own SRPM.

There are two approaches I'm experimenting with to packaging modules for python 3:

create an separate specfile/srpm for the python 3 version
extend an existing specfile so that it emits a python3- subpackage as part of the build.

I've experimented with both approaches for python3-setuptools

Split/separate SRPMs: a src.rpm for python- and another for python3-

Given package python-foo in packaging CVS, there would be a separate python3-foo for the python 3 version. There would be no expectation that the two would need to upgrade in lock-step. (The two SRPMS could have different maintainers within Fedora: the packager of a python 2 module might not yet have any interest in python 3)

Example: python3-setuptools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531648 (simple adaptation of python-setuptools, apparently without needing an invocation of 2to3)

Dave Malcolm has written a tool which generates a python3-foo.spec from a python-foo.spec; see http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/python3-packaging/rpm2to3.py

Advantages:

if the python-foo maintainer doesn't care about python 3, he/she doesn't need to
the two specfiles can evolve separately; if 2 and 3 need to have different versions, they can

Disadvantages:

the two specfiles have to be maintained separately
when upstream release e.g. security fixes, they have to be tracked in two places

Single shared SRPM emitting both python- and python3- subpackages

Method

Use the -n syntax to emit a python3-foo subpackage from a python-foo build.
Towards the end of the %prep phase, copy the code to a parallel subdirectory, and invoke 2to3 --write upon it

Run 2to3 on the correct directory
If your specfile runs 2to3-3 on the code, make sure you are running it on the full tree. A common mistake here for distutils packages has been to run it on the directory below setup.py, missing the setup.py file, leading to errors when python3 tries to execute setup.py

Examples:

Emitting python3-setuptools as a subpackage from python-setuptools: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531895
Emitting python3-lxml as a subpackage from python-lxml: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=533290

Advantages:

single src.rpm and build; avoid having to update multiple packages when things change.

Disadvantages:

The Fedora maintainer needs to care about python 3. By adding python 3 to the mix, we're giving them extra work.
2 and 3 versions are in lockstep. Requires upstream to case about Python 3 as well (or for Python 2, for that matter)
Bugzilla components are set up by source RPM, so they would have a single shared bugzilla component. This could be confusing to end-users, as it would be more difficult to figure out e.g. that a bug with python3-foo needs to be filed against python-foo. There's a similar problem with checking out package sources from CVS, though this is less serious as it doesn't affect end-users so much.

When should we have two split SRPMs vs one shared, and vice versa?

The easy case is when upstream release separate tarballs for the python 2 and python 3 versions of code. In that case, it makes sense to follow upstream and have separate specfiles, separate source rpms, etc.

The more difficult case is when the python module is emitted as part of the build of a larger module.

One case is for an extension module giving python bindings for a library built within the larger rpm. Some examples:

the build of rpm itself emits an rpm-python subpackage (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531543 )
Another example is the postgres srpm, which emits a postgresql-python subpackage.
libvirt

I believe the ideal here is to patch the code so that it will build against both python versions, then take a copy of the sources during the %prep phase, and configure one subdirectory to build against python 2, another to build against python 3.

Macros

The python3-devel subpackage contains a /etc/rpm/macros.python3 file which contains definitions of:

 __python3
 python3_sitelib
 python3_sitearch

which thus makes it unnecessary to define these in every module specfile (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526126#c43 ).

Guidelines for adding python3 subpackages to an existing package

Use a `with_python3` conditional

This page is a draft only
It is still under construction and content may change. Do not rely on the information on this page.

All parts of the build relating to python3 should be conditionalized, to make it easy to turn off the python3 build in case of problems.

You should add this fragment to the top of the source file:

%if 0%{?fedora} > 12
%global with_python3 1
%endif

Rationale: we should consistent use "with_python3". The conditionals make it easy use the same spec for RHEL and other branches than devel.

All usage of this macro should look like this:

%if 0%{?with_python3}
...
%endif # with_python3

This way the code will be disabled if the macro is not defined, and it is easy to visually match if/endif pairs

Separate python 2 and python 3 build directories

The python 2 and python 3 build should be as independent as possible.

You should define a macro "py3dir" defining the location of the python 3 build directory near the top of the .spec file.

A typical definition of this macro might look like this:

%if 0%{?with_python3}
%global py3dir ../python3-%{name}-%{version}
%endif # with_python3

If you have had to use a %{srcname} macro to work around differences between the rpm name and the tarball's directory name, the definition should look like this:

%if 0%{?with_python3}
%global py3dir ../python3-%{srcname}-%{version}
%endif # with_python3

The `%prep` phase

The %prep phase of the build should prepare an entirely distinct source tree for the python3 build in the py3dir.

A recommended way to do this is to add this to the end of the %prep code:

%if 0%{?with_python3}
cp -a . %{py3dir}
%endif # with_python3

Make sure that you are copying the correct code. The above code assumes that you are within the top of the sources directory (typically with the "Foo-1.0" within the build). If the %prep has changed directory you will need to change back to the tarball location.

If your package requires you to apply some patches only to the python 2 build, and some patches only to the python 3 build, you should structure your %prep like this:

%setup

# Apply patches relevant to both python 2 and python 3:
%patch0
%patch1
...

# Create source tree for python3 build:
%if 0%{?with_python3}
cp -a . %{py3dir}
%endif # with_python3

# Apply patches only relevant to python 2:
%patch
...

# Apply patches only relevant to python 3:
%if 0%{?with_python3}
cd %{py3dir}
%patch
...
%endif # with_python3

rpmbuild resets the directory at the end of each phase, so you don't need to restore the directory at the end of %prep.

Other phases

For each of the %build, %check and %install phases, you should copy the existing code, wrapping it with a pushd/popd of %{py3dir}, and convert all macro references:

from %{__python} to %{__python3},
%{python_sitelib} to %{python3_sitelib} and
%{python_sitearch} to %{python3_sitearch}.

For example, this %build section:

CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" %{__python} setup.py build

should become:

# Python 2:
CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" %{__python} setup.py build

# Python 3:
%if 0%{?with_python3}
pushd %{py3dir}
CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" %{__python3} setup.py build
popd
%endif # with_python3

so that the python 2 and python 3 versions of the code line up vertically, making it easier to see differences. The usage of pushd/popd commands will ensure that the directories are logged.

Rationale: it's not easily possible to turn this into a loop (FIXME: is it?) due to the macro differences, so we must unroll the loop and repeat ourselves.

Avoiding collisions between the python 2 and python 3 stacks

The python 2 and python 3 stacks are intended to be fully-installable in parallel. When generalizing the package for both python 2 and python 3, it is important to ensure that two different built packages do not attempt to place different payloads into the same path.

Executables in `/usr/bin`

This page is a draft only
It is still under construction and content may change. Do not rely on the information on this page.

The problem

Many existing python packages install executables into /usr/bin.

For example if we have a console_scripts in a setup.py shared between python 2 and python 3 builds: these will spit out files in /usr/bin/, and these will collide.

For example python-coverage has a setup.py that contains:

    entry_points = {
        'console_scripts': [
            'coverage = coverage:main',
            ]
        },

which thus generates a /usr/bin/coverage executable (this is a python script that runs another python script whilst generating code-coverage information on the latter).

Similarly for the 'scripts' clause; see e.g. python-pygments: Pygments-1.1.1/setup.py has:

    scripts = ['pygmentize'],

which generates a /usr/bin/pygmentize (this is a python script that leverages the pygments syntax-highlighting module, giving a simple command-line interface for generating syntax-highlighted files)

Guidelines

If the executables provide the same functionality independent of whether they are run on top of Python 2 or Python 3, then only one version of the executable should be packaged. Currently it will be the python 2 implementation, but once the Python 3 implementation is proven to work, the executable can be retired from the python 2 build and enabled in the python 3 package. Be sure to test the new implementation. FOR DISCUSSION: how do we do the transition period?

Examples of this:

/usr/bin/pygmentize ought to generate the same output regardless of whether it's implemented via Python 2 or Python 3, so only one version needs to be shipped.

If the executables provide different functionality for Python 2 and Python 3, then both versions should be packaged.

Examples of this:

/usr/bin/coverage runs a python script, augmenting the interpreter with code-coverage information. Given that the interpreter itself is the thing being worked with, it's reasonable to package both versions of the executable.
/usr/bin/bpython augments the interpreter with a "curses" interface. Again, it's reasonable to package both versions of this.
/usr/bin/easy_install installs a module into one of the Python runtimes: we need a version for each runtime.

As an exception, for the rpms that are part of a python runtime itself, we plan to package both versions of the executables, so that e.g. both the python 2 and python 3 versions of 2to3 are packaged.

Naming

Many executables already contain a "-MAJOR.MINOR" suffix, for example /usr/bin/easy_install-3.1. These obviously can be used as-is, as they won't conflict.

For other executables, the general rule is:

if only one executable is to be shipped, then it owns its own slot
if executables are to be shipped for both python 2 and python 3, then the python 3 version of the executable gains a python3- prefix. For example, the python 2 version of "coverage" remains /usr/bin/coverage and the python 3 version is /usr/bin/python3-coverage. FOR DISCUSSION: should the python 2 version gain a python2- prefix, and have the main path becoming a symlink to the python2- version?

See this thread for a discussion of this.

Best Practices

This page is a draft only
It is still under construction and content may change. Do not rely on the information on this page.

Recommended best-practices for keeping python 2 and python 3 in sync:

when packaging a module for python 3, you should approach the python 2 package owners.
if separate maintainership for python 2 vs python 3 modules, you should request a watchbugzilla and watchcommit on each other's packages
complete any python 2 Merge Review before doing a python 3 version
add link to the python 2 Merge Review/Package Review to the python 3 Package Review
if you need to run 2to3 to fix code, use 2to3-3 to use the /usr/bin/2to3-3 from the python3-tools rpm, rather than /usr/bin/2to3 from the python-tools rpm (rationale: this is a somewhat arbitrary decision, but it seems worthwhile to have a policy here).
if 2to3-3 runs into a problem, please file a bug. Please try to isolate a minimal test case that reproduces the problem when doing so.
remember to test the built RPMs and verify that they actually work!

TODO

These items need to be addressed before the Guidelines can be brought to the Packaging Committee

Must address bug 532118 so the Requires: python(abi) is automatically extracted. Then we can remove the warning from the #Multiple_Runtimes section.
[done] brp_python_bytecompile updated
Write py_byte_compile macro to do manual byte compilation and get it into rpm or redhat-rpm-config so it's available to packagers
Approve the Naming Guidelines rewrite

Search

Archive:PackagingDrafts/Python3

Contents

Packaging Python modules for Python 3

Multiple Python Runtimes

Byte Compiling

Python modules for non-standard runtimes

Naming

Addon Packages (python3 modules)

Common SRPM vs split SRPMs

Split/separate SRPMs: a src.rpm for python- and another for python3-

Single shared SRPM emitting both python- and python3- subpackages

When should we have two split SRPMs vs one shared, and vice versa?

Macros

Guidelines for adding python3 subpackages to an existing package

Use a `with_python3` conditional

Separate python 2 and python 3 build directories

The `%prep` phase

Other phases

Avoiding collisions between the python 2 and python 3 stacks

Executables in `/usr/bin`

The problem

Guidelines

Naming

Best Practices

TODO

Search

Archive:PackagingDrafts/Python3

Packaging Python modules for Python 3

Multiple Python Runtimes

Byte Compiling

Python modules for non-standard runtimes

Naming

Addon Packages (python3 modules)

Common SRPM vs split SRPMs

Split/separate SRPMs: a src.rpm for python- and another for python3-

Single shared SRPM emitting both python- and python3- subpackages

When should we have two split SRPMs vs one shared, and vice versa?

Macros

Guidelines for adding python3 subpackages to an existing package

Use a with_python3 conditional

Separate python 2 and python 3 build directories

The %prep phase

Other phases

Avoiding collisions between the python 2 and python 3 stacks

Executables in /usr/bin

The problem

Guidelines

Naming

Best Practices

TODO

Use a `with_python3` conditional

The `%prep` phase

Executables in `/usr/bin`