Bug 189342
| Summary: | Python egg spec template | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet> | ||||
| Component: | fedora-rpmdevtools | Assignee: | Ville Skyttä <scop> | ||||
| Status: | CLOSED INSUFFICIENT_DATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | medium | ||||||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | extras-qa, fedora-extras-list | ||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||
| Hardware: | All | ||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
| Last Closed: | 2006-08-20 19:15:18 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: | |||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams
2006-04-19 11:10:21 UTC
Created attachment 127979 [details]
Python egg spec template
I have no experience with python eggs, so Cc'ing the FE list for comments about
the specfile contents and whether a separate template for them is actually needed.
Some questions/notes though, assuming this will be added:
fedora-newrpmspec should still continue to use the generic python template, no?
Using %{name} and %{name}-%{version} in %files sounds a bit optimistic for my
taste, it's not uncommon to slightly deviate from upstream naming in python
package names, and I don't see %{name} or %{version} being passed to any build
or install commands. --> there's a disconnect
Also, the example %files entries use %{python_sitelib}, are the files always
installed there, or sometimes to %{python_sitearch}?
Due to the two potential issues above, I'd be inclined to just drop the example
%files entries.
(In reply to comment #2) > fedora-newrpmspec should still continue to use the generic python template, no? Of course. This would be added as another template, not replace the existing one. > Due to the two potential issues above, I'd be inclined to just drop the example > %files entries. Sounds sane to me. (In reply to comment #3) > This would be added as another template, not replace the existing one. I didn't mean to replace it, but that one can't tell from the package name that it's an egg so newrpmspec couldn't currently auto-select it for any new packages. > > I'd be inclined to just drop the example %files entries. > Sounds sane to me. After that change, the only difference to the current python spec template would be the python-setuptools build dependency and --single-version-externally-managed argument to setup.py, and that's no longer something that I think warrants a different spec template. No feedback to comment 4, assuming this is not needed. Feel free to reopen for more discussion if you disagree. *** Bug 239629 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** |