<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid4963DF8D.9060102@gmail.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Gerry Reno wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Jesse Keating wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">No, this won't work. 5.0.0_rc2 is in fact rpm newer than 5.0.0.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Is there some way to force rpm to recognize 5.0.0 as newer than
5.0.0_rc2? How else are you supposed to handle the release candidate
packaging?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->No. This needs to be fixed in distutils/setuptools. I don't think that
distutils currently knows anything about versions and ordering.
setuptools does its own ordering which is incompatible with rpm but I
don't believe that impacts the bdist_rpm target.
To work, bdist_rpm would need to understand the ordering of the package
and map that to an ordering for rpm. In Fedora we do the mapping
manually by placing the prerelease information into the rpm release field:
Upstream: foo-5.0.0_rc2
Rpm Version: 5.0.0
Rpm Release: 0.1.rc2
Upstream: foo-5.0.0_rc3
Rpm Version: 5.0.0
Rpm Release: 0.2.rc3
Upstream: foo-5.0.0
Rpm Version: 5.0.0
Rpm Release: 1
</pre>
</blockquote>
Ok, I need to work on this a little to see what is going to be
necessary to get something that will work for both apt and rpm as far
as release candidate versioning, ordering and updating.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid4963DF8D.9060102@gmail.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">As to your other problem, I haven't even attempted it as the distutils
generated spec file isn't acceptable to Fedora packaging standards,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Why is this? I've built RPMS using bdist_rpm and they work just fine.
You can configure things in setup.cfg. Of course I had to force an
ignore of the "Installed but not packaged files" error which is not a
permanent solution to the problem. I would prefer to use 'bdist_rpm'
and not develop a whole new way of building python packages when
distutils can already do this. If something cannot be configured then I
think distutils should be enhanced.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->bdist_rpm can create a valid rpm. But it doesn't meet our standards.
For instance, as you've found it doesn't account for the *.pyo files.
These need to be included in the package otherwise they can be created
later at runtime (if python optimize is on and root runs a python
program, for instance) and then leave the unowned *.pyo's on the system.
-Toshio
</pre>
</blockquote>
Thomas just had a good suggestion and I tried it and it seems to work
and it generates the .pyo files.<br>
My goal is to only use 'bdist' and 'bdist_rpm' configured using
setup.cfg to generate apt and rpm files for various distros. This sure
simplifies things. Are you saying that this is not going to be
possible with Fedora/RedHat?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Gerry<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>