doc/languages-frameworks/python: Reword section to make commit rules a bit clearer

[Pandapip1]

Description of changes

See the minor confusion at #339136 (comment)

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
  • sandbox = relaxed
  • sandbox = true
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 24.11 Release Notes (or backporting 23.11 and 24.05 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

---

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

[emilazy]

IIRC, this is out of date and ofborg will build both package sets if you use python3Packages (not sure if this was ever true). Therefore this advice is actually counterproductive.

Disclaimer: I have not verified this recently.

[emilazy]

I believe that #165994 fixed this, but maybe it regressed since or something.

[eclairevoyant]

python3Packages does not work on ofborg, I (wearily) nit about it for that reason.

[eclairevoyant]

Also just to encourage good practices from people who are reading too quickly, we should either specify python312Packages specifically or say python3xxPackages to be more general IMO.

[emilazy]

I swear it worked at one point. Maybe I’m just imagining things or maybe it broke again. I’m not the only person who remembered it working since someone else said to me recently that it had been fixed at some point. :(

[natsukium]

I have been checking python libraries for over a year and have never had it work. Maybe they missed that someone ran it manually.
People don't read much documentation, but they often ask reviewers to show them documentation.
It needs to be clearly stated to avoid unnecessary discussion.

[mweinelt]

NixOS/ofborg#577

[emilazy]

I think python3{11,12}Packages.… should work, right? Maybe we should prefer that to check both supported versions. (I don’t suppose we can get away with python3*Packages?)

[natsukium]

Personally, I don't want to complicate it because that can be checked by nixpkgs-review.
In my experience, just checking one version is usually enough to catch build failures on aarch64-linux or darwin that are often overlooked.

[eclairevoyant]

I think the changes read naturally and it's certainly more explicit. Thank you for the PR!

[nixos-discourse]

This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/prs-ready-for-review/3032/4801

[nixpkgs-ci]

Successfully created backport PR for release-24.11:

• [Backport release-24.11] doc/languages-frameworks/python: Reword section to make commit rules a bit clearer #363468