Upstream packaging feedback

[Nick Coghlan]

On 09/13/2012 08:14 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> All that said.... you can probably sidestep some of these issues by having
> python packages contain explicit virtual Provides.  These might be manually
> added or automatically generated by a tool like pypi2rpm with the
> maintainer editting them afterwards to make sure they didn't hit any of the
> above cornercases.

Yeah, explicit virtual provides is definitely the path I was thinking of
heading down, along the lines of automating the simple cases (where
"python(pypi-dist-name)" does the right thing when there's a one-to-one
mapping from the PyPI distribution to the Fedora RPM, even if the RPM
name is different), and permitting manual workarounds for the "two RPMs"
case (e.g. by setting things up so that depending on
"python(pypi-dist-name)" install both of them) and being able to declare
explicit conflicts for the non-pypi items.

> There's some prior work done by other people:
> * http://www.rpm.org/ticket/154
> * http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2008-June/004715.html
>   (Despite my having written that email, the hard parts were all dmalcolm :-)

Thanks for the references.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan
Red Hat Infrastructure Engineering & Development, Brisbane