Template for modules that use pbr?

[Nick Coghlan]

On 10/30/2014 06:57 PM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>>    Comparing the two shows a number of additional files in
>>    the latter (AUTHORS, ChangeLog, git_review.egg-info,
>>    PKG-INFO).  Am I correct to assume that this is a problem
>>    upstream, i. e. that the tarballs should not have been
>>    published in this state, and/or is there a way to work
>>    around that in the spec file?
> 
> The important thing here is that upstreams do not "publish" tarballs on Github. Github dynamically generates tarballs of repos for given tag/commit hash when you request it. This generally means that the tarball downloaded from Github is not what upstream meant to release (unlike pypi, which *is* what upstream released).
> The interesting thing about the tarball from pypi is, that all files in the archive are owned by "jenkins" user. I didn't check, but my guess is, that when upstream wants to do a release, they let Jenkins (with access to upstream git repository, which is what pbr asks you to have) generate the final tarball - and Jenkins generates all the extra files before packing the tarball. If you look at the files missing from the first archive, they do look autogenerated, which seems to confirm my thoughts, but I'm not 100 % sure.

Right, Python sdists include some metadata files that can either be
maintained manually (which is error prone) or automatically generated
from source control (which introduces a build step into the release
archive generation, so the tarballs automatically generated by GitHub
are incomplete).

In this case, if you don't have the pregenerated metadata files from the
sdist, then pbr is going to need access to the original git repo in
order to generate them (see
http://docs.openstack.org/developer/pbr/#what-it-does for the things it
can automatically derive).

Regards,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan
Red Hat Hosted & Shared Services
Software Engineering & Development, Brisbane

HSS Provisioning Architect