[Fedora-packaging] Scripting language dependencies

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Fri Feb 17 20:39:42 UTC 2012


On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 03:23:36PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> writes:
> > I tested this with spectool -g and python-psycopg2 and all variants of that
> > py3ver line work.(without even a warning).  So spectool isn't really an
> > issue.
> 
> I don't know what spectool is, but I can demonstrate what I see every
> time I work with this package:
> 
Paul's concern was about spectool -g python-psycopg2.spec doing the right
thing.

I checked, and it does.

> [tgl at rh3 ~]$ cd f-pkg/python-psycopg2/master/
> [tgl at rh3 master]$ ls
> psycopg2-2.4.4.tar.gz  python-psycopg2.spec  sources
> [tgl at rh3 master]$ fedpkg srpm
> sh: python3: command not found
> error: Macro %py3ver has empty body
> sh: python3: command not found
> error: Macro %py3ver has empty body
> 
> sh: python3: command not found
> error: Macro %py3ver has empty body
> Wrote: /home/tgl/f-pkg/python-psycopg2/master/python-psycopg2-2.4.4-1.fc18.src.rpm
> 
> The generated SRPM is fine, and I can (and do) test it in mock, but
> those messages would certainly scare anybody not familiar with the
> package.  I've seen similar behavior with other packages.  I'd like
> this guideline to show how this sort of thing can be avoided.
> 
I would keep the concerns separate.  The original post was about not having
extraneous deps simply because someone is more comfortable writing a routine
check for information in $RANDOM_UNRELATED_LANGUAGE rather than shell.

This concern is about making things that you actually must BuildRequire in
order to build the package not display warnings when the BuildRequires are
not satisfied.

They're very different.  And I'm not sure that I would vote the same for
each of those.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20120217/920fcffa/attachment.sig>


More information about the packaging mailing list