Created attachment 462186 [details] patch for python-rdflib packaging to bump to 3.0.0 We're using rdflib-3.0.0 on RHEL5 for Beaker. I had to make a few changes to the packaging to update it to version 3.0.0 (patch attached). It would be great if this could make it into EPEL for RHEL5 :-)
Any news on this ? I'd like to see an update, too. Thanks,
Sorry for not getting around to this (I haven't used rdflib in a long time) I noticed that in the meantime that 3.1.0 is out. I've updated python-rdflib in rawdhide (for f17) to 3.1.0, using parts of your patch as a basis: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=python-rdflib.git;a=commitdiff;h=bb63a7d9a512e960c4cbbb06c5337b0946dcc9a8 Building python-rdflib-3.1.0-1.fc17 for dist-rawhide Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3386074 Thanks! I'm a little wary about bumping EPEL5's python-rdflib from 2.4.0 to 3.*, as 3.* seems to have dropped a lot of functionality, moving it to extensions. Having said that, I'm no longer using rdflib, so I'll defer to people who are. Looking at the parts of the patch for the 2.4 port (for EPEL5), does it lead to valid Python code? The result of applying: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=462186&action=diff#a/rdflib-3.0.0-python24.patch_sec1 looks like it leads to a syntax error.
Thanks ! What about F16 (to be released in a couple of weeks) ? It would be great to get it in there, too. (Or even F15, for that matter.)
(In reply to comment #3) > Thanks ! What about F16 (to be released in a couple of weeks) ? It would be > great to get it in there, too. (Or even F15, for that matter.) I merged the changes from master to f16: Building python-rdflib-3.1.0-1.fc16 for f16-candidate Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3386114
python-rdflib-3.1.0-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-rdflib-3.1.0-1.fc16
Package python-rdflib-3.1.0-1.fc16: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing python-rdflib-3.1.0-1.fc16' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-rdflib-3.1.0-1.fc16 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
(In reply to comment #2) > Sorry for not getting around to this (I haven't used rdflib in a long time) > > I noticed that in the meantime that 3.1.0 is out. > > I've updated python-rdflib in rawdhide (for f17) to 3.1.0, using parts of your > patch as a basis: > > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=python-rdflib.git;a=commitdiff;h=bb63a7d9a512e960c4cbbb06c5337b0946dcc9a8 > > Building python-rdflib-3.1.0-1.fc17 for dist-rawhide > Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3386074 > > Thanks! No worries. I forgot all about this bug, we have actually been using 3.1.0 on RHEL5 for some time now. We found one Python 2.4 compatibility issue (different to the one in 3.0.0) which I reported upstream with a patch: http://code.google.com/p/rdflib/issues/detail?id=177 We're using that patch in our package. > I'm a little wary about bumping EPEL5's python-rdflib from 2.4.0 to 3.*, as 3.* > seems to have dropped a lot of functionality, moving it to extensions. Having > said that, I'm no longer using rdflib, so I'll defer to people who are. Agreed that it might be best to leave EPEL5 at 2.4. > Looking at the parts of the patch for the 2.4 port (for EPEL5), does it lead to > valid Python code? The result of applying: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=462186&action=diff#a/rdflib-3.0.0-python24.patch_sec1 > looks like it leads to a syntax error. No you're right, that was either my mistake when generating the attached patch or Bugzilla has gone mental. The patch was supposed to replace the bare "yield" statement with an equivalent "yield None". It has been fixed upstream in 3.1.0 anyway.
python-rdflib-3.2.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-rdflib-3.2.0-1.el6
python-rdflib-3.2.0-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-rdflib-3.2.0-1.fc15
python-rdflib-3.2.0-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-rdflib-3.2.0-1.el5
python-rdflib-3.2.0-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-rdflib-3.2.0-1.fc16
It looks like 3.2.0 has introduced a dependency on the isodate module: $ python -c 'import rdflib' Traceback (most recent call last): File "<string>", line 1, in <module> File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/rdflib/__init__.py", line 65, in <module> from rdflib.term import URIRef, BNode, Literal, Variable File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/rdflib/term.py", line 49, in <module> from isodate import parse_time, parse_date, parse_datetime ImportError: No module named isodate python-isodate is already packaged for F16, but not for F15 and EL6.
(In reply to comment #12) > It looks like 3.2.0 has introduced a dependency on the isodate module: > > $ python -c 'import rdflib' > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "<string>", line 1, in <module> > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/rdflib/__init__.py", line 65, in > <module> > from rdflib.term import URIRef, BNode, Literal, Variable > File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/rdflib/term.py", line 49, in <module> > from isodate import parse_time, parse_date, parse_datetime > ImportError: No module named isodate > > python-isodate is already packaged for F16, but not for F15 and EL6. Reported on #784027
python-rdflib-3.2.0-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-rdflib-3.2.0-2.fc16
python-rdflib-3.2.0-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
python-rdflib-3.2.0-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.