Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: what policy for python egg files
On Mon, 2006-12-18 at 19:49 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 07:23:29PM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 05:47:48PM +0000, David Lutterkort wrote:
> > The crucial issue are the dependencies that right now have to stay
> > within each packaging format; if rpm's can't contain any egg (or gem
or
> > whatnot) info, users will end up installing the same package twice, just
> > to fulfill dependencies completely within each packaging system.
>
> Don't you have the same issue if you install the egg with -Z? If not,
> then the (egg-)package dependencies are obvioulsy spooled somewhere on
> disk for easy_install and friends to find.
Looks like all has been considered in advance by the egg folks:
> --single-version-externally-managed
> This boolean option tells the install command to perform an "old
> style" installation, with the addition of an .egg-info directory
> so that the installed project will still have its metadata
> available and operate normally. If you use this option, you must
> also specify the --root or --record options (or both), because
> otherwise you will have no way to identify and remove the
> installed files.
> > It would be much more userfriendly if we laid the groundwork for other
> > packaging systems to depend on rpm-installed bits; that mostly means to
> > _allow_ inclusion of non-rpm packaging metadata in rpms.
>
> If you like so, having "egg-provides" is fine, of course. Just like we
> have foo.pc, but don't keep the full tarball around.
The equivalent to *.pc files seem to be the .egg-info subdirs. So we
don't need to ship the egg file in addition within the rpm file, but
still feed the egg packaging system with information.
Heh. This is what we've been doing :-)
From lmacken's TurboMail spec, for instance:
%files
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%{python_sitelib}/TurboMail-%{version}-py%{pyver}.egg-info
-Toshio
Attachments:
- signature.asc (application/pgp-signature — 189 bytes)