Matej Cepl wrote:
On 10.2.2012 18:09, 80 wrote:
> Python guidelines recommends that packagers installs python eggs using
> distutils (python setup.py install as recommended in guidelines) while
> pip use the same install method as easy_install (provided by
> setuptools/distribute). The former one install egg metadata as a file,
> the latter as a directory, that's not a packaging/rpm issue.
a) I don't think the answer “Then don’t do it” is a good one. Some other
Fedora-packaged languages (Perl comes to mind) allow three levels (or
maybe even four) of installation of packages (in CPAN meaning of the
word), system-wide-RPM-packaged, system-wide-unpackaged (to
/usr/local/*), and per-user-in-$HOME. Not sure how it is with Ruby and
PHP, but I believe this should be a standard in all major
Fedora-packaged languages.
b) distutils v. setuptools conflict is just an unfortunate testimony of
immature bad state of the Python upstream packaging, but it seems to me
that generally Python world is moving towards setuptools. Shouldn't we
follow the suite and move towards setuptools as well?
c) If we want to have as many Python packages packaged in RPMs (the
terminology is going to kill me soon) do we have some pip2spec (in the
same manner as there is cpan2spec)?
Best,
Matěj
We will never have all python packages that users may want to try out packaged,
nor should we want to. I will only package items for Fedora that I have used
enough to convince myself that they are:
1. useful enough in general
2. likely to continue to be developed/maintained
I always try out packages first via easy_install or pip (after checking they are
not already available via yum).
Yes, I could try things via virtualenv, but I'm just not in that habit - and I
suspect many others are in the same boat.