Spec URL: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-setuptools.spec SRPM URL: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-setuptools-0.6.10-1.el5.src.rpm Note: this is purely intended for the EPEL5 branch, not for Fedora Description: This is a python26-setuptools to go with python26 in EPEL5. I haven't been as conservative as I could, as this is the latest F-13 version of python-setuptools, with the Python 3 support removed, and with some ideas taken from the IUS python26-setuptools. It is a rebase to the "distribute" fork of setuptools. I haven't split out a separate -devel subpackage, as in the python26 build (see bug 573151) the files needed at runtime by easy_install are in the core "python26" subpackage, rather than "python26-devel" If desired, I could instead be more conservative and simply reuse the python26-setuptools from IUS. It contains the .pyc fix referred to in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573151#c9 I wasn't able to scratch build in Koji, as it needs python26 ("No Package Found for python26-devel"); is this doable with chain builds? The rpmlint output is clean, apart from this warning (due to the dist tag): python26-setuptools.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.10-1 0.6.10-1.el5
Why not package as 'python26-distribute' which 'Provides: python26-setuptools'?
My bad: this package doesn't actually install :( I missed the move of easy_install to easy_install-2.6, which meant that it shadowed the version from the main stack. Updated specfile: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-setuptools.spec Updated SRPM: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-setuptools-0.6.10-2.el5.src.rpm Diff of specfile: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/from-0.6.10-1-to-0.6.10-2.diff Fixes the shadowing issue; rpmlint output is as before
(In reply to comment #1) > Why not package as 'python26-distribute' which 'Provides: python26-setuptools'? OK. I was following what Fedora 13 did here. Is the rebase acceptable, or would you prefer a most conservative approach?
(In reply to comment #3) > Is the rebase acceptable, or would you prefer a most conservative approach? s/most/more , I meant to write
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #1) > > Why not package as 'python26-distribute' which 'Provides: python26-setuptools'? > > OK. I was following what Fedora 13 did here. > > Is the rebase acceptable, or would you prefer a most conservative approach? Hmm... wonder why they did it that way. Functionality is the important thing... though it seems confusing to me... most users would assume that python26-setuptools means setuptools... not distribute. Maybe there was some reason why they did it that way that I'm missing. Maybe your reviewer can comment.
(In reply to comment #5) This was taken from python-setuptools.spec in Fedora, which is so named because until recently it _was_ setuptools. I've reworked this to be "python26-distribute" in order to be more explicit that we're using the "Distribute" fork. I'm renaming this review request accordingly. Updated specfile: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-distribute.spec Updated SRPM: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-distribute-0.6.10-3.el5.src.rpm Difference between specfiles (since comment #2): http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/from-python26-setuptools-0.6.10-2-to-python26-distribute-0.6.10-3.diff rpmlint output is as in comment #0: python26-distribute.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.10-3 0.6.10-3.el5
Review: python26-distribute. Date: * PASS: rpmlint output $ rpmlint SPECS/python26-distribute.spec \ SRPMS/python26-distribute-0.6.10-3.el5.src.rpm \ RPMS/noarch/python26-distribute-0.6.10-3.el5.noarch.rpm \ python26-distribute.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.6.10-3 0.6.10-3.el5 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. * PASS: Named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. python26-<tarballname> * PASS: spec file name same as base package %{name}. * PASS: Packaging Guidelines. * PASS: Approved license in .spec file. Python or ZPLv2.0 * PASS: License on Source code. zpl.txt and psfl.txt * PASS: Include LICENSE file or similar if it exist. zpl.txt and psfl.txt * PASS: Written in American English. * PASS: Spec file legible. * PASS: Included source must match upstream source. $ md5sum distribute-0.6.10.tar.gz ../SOURCES/distribute-0.6.10.tar.gz 99fb4b3e4ef0861bba11aa1905e89fed distribute-0.6.10.tar.gz 99fb4b3e4ef0861bba11aa1905e89fed ../SOURCES/distribute-0.6.10.tar.gz * PASS: Build on one architecture. * PASS: Not building on an architecture must highlighted. * PASS: Build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. * PASS: Handle locales properly. no locales * PASS: ldconfig must be called on shared libs. no libs * PASS: No bundled copies of system libraries. none present * PASS: Package must state why relocatable if relocatable. not relocatalbe. * PASS: A package must own all directories that it creates * PASS: No duplicate files in %files listings. None * PASS: Permissions on files must be set properly. %defattr %defatt present, * PASS: %clean section contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). Present * FAIL: Each package must consistently use macros. See below * PASS: The package must contain code, or permissable content. * PASS: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. No large docs * PASS: %doc must not affect the runtime of the application. * PASS: Header files must be in a -devel package. No headers * PASS: Static libraries must be in a -static package. No libs * PASS: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' None * PASS: Then library files that end in .so None * PASS: devel packages must require the exact base package None * PASS: No .la libtool archives None * PASS: GUI apps should have %{name}.desktop file No Gui * PASS: No files or directories already owned by other packages. None * PASS: %install must run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). It does * PASS: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. They are. Summary: Just one things. The .spec file uses both {buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT which it should not. On a similar but less important you want to replace $RPM_OPT_FLAGS with %{optflags}
Thanks for looking at this. Updated specfile: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-distribute.spec Updated SRPM: http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-distribute-0.6.10-4.el5.src.rpm Difference between specfiles (since comment #6): http://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/epel-packaging/python26-distribute-from-0.6.10-3-to-0.6.10.4.diff
APPROVED this should open up a lot more.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: python26-distribute Short Description: the "Distribute" fork of setuptools for the python26 EPEL package Owners: dmalcolm Branches: EL-5 InitialCC: Note: this package is intended purely for EPEL, not for Fedora.
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
Thanks I've added a "dead.package" to the devel branch: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/python26-distribute/devel/dead.package?view=log I've imported the src.rpm to the EL-5 branch http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/python26-distribute/EL-5/ pkgdb shows the package here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/python26-distribute Can't build it in Koji until python26 reaches the buildroots: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2139067&name=root.log shows: "No Package Found for python26-devel" (see http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python26-2.6.5-3.el5 )
> Can't build it in Koji until python26 reaches the buildroots: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2139067&name=root.log > shows: > "No Package Found for python26-devel" > (see http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python26-2.6.5-3.el5 ) If you like you can request a build override via a ticket to https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ category EPEL.
Hi, Can this be built now?
python26-distribute-0.6.10-4.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python26-distribute-0.6.10-4.el5
python26-distribute-0.6.10-4.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.