9:18 a.m.
Is there a proper, 'Packaging Guidelines friendly' way to ensure a specific
version of python?
Is following fine?
Requires: python >= 2.6
BuildRequires: python2-devel >= 2.6
Thanks,
Martin
9:24 a.m.
On 08/10/2011 09:18 AM, Martin Krizek wrote:
Is there a proper, 'Packaging Guidelines friendly' way to
ensure a specific version of python?
Is following fine?
Requires: python>= 2.6
BuildRequires: python2-devel>= 2.6
Depends on the context and what you mean exactly by "Specific version of
python". however,
BuildRequires: python2-devel >= 2.6
will indeed ensure that python3 isn't used, for example.
python runtime deps are generally automatic, with
Requires: python(abi) = ...
being added by rpmbuild. do you have any cases where this isn't the case?
-- rex
9:49 a.m.
> Is there a proper, 'Packaging Guidelines friendly' way
to ensure a
> specific version of python?
>
> Is following fine?
>
> Requires: python>= 2.6
> BuildRequires: python2-devel>= 2.6
Depends on the context and what you mean exactly by "Specific version
of
python". however,
BuildRequires: python2-devel >= 2.6
will indeed ensure that python3 isn't used, for example.
I mean python >= 2.6 and < 3.
Thanks,
Martin
9:59 a.m.
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 09:24 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
On 08/10/2011 09:18 AM, Martin Krizek wrote:
> Is there a proper, 'Packaging Guidelines friendly' way to ensure a specific
version of python?
>
> Is following fine?
>
> Requires: python>= 2.6
> BuildRequires: python2-devel>= 2.6
Depends on the context and what you mean exactly by "Specific version of
python".
Just adding a bit more context to Martin's post. Specifically in this
case, the code being packaged no longer runs on python 2.4 (RHEL5). So
we were looking for a way packaging method to ensure this wouldn't land
on any RHEL5 systems, where it's not expected to work.
however,
BuildRequires: python2-devel >= 2.6
will indeed ensure that python3 isn't used, for example.
python runtime deps are generally automatic, with
Requires: python(abi) = ...
being added by rpmbuild. do you have any cases where this isn't the case?
Thanks,
James
10:01 a.m.
On 08/10/2011 10:59 AM, James Laska wrote:
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 09:24 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> On 08/10/2011 09:18 AM, Martin Krizek wrote:
>> Is there a proper, 'Packaging Guidelines friendly' way to ensure a
specific version of python?
>>
>> Is following fine?
>>
>> Requires: python>= 2.6
>> BuildRequires: python2-devel>= 2.6
>
> Depends on the context and what you mean exactly by "Specific version of
> python".
Just adding a bit more context to Martin's post. Specifically in this
case, the code being packaged no longer runs on python 2.4 (RHEL5). So
we were looking for a way packaging method to ensure this wouldn't land
on any RHEL5 systems, where it's not expected to work.
I think this will work:
Requires: python(abi) > 2.4
It won't prevent the package from being built for RHEL5. but it sure
won't install. :)
~tom
==
Fedora Project
11:42 a.m.
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 11:01 -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 08/10/2011 10:59 AM, James Laska wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 09:24 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>> On 08/10/2011 09:18 AM, Martin Krizek wrote:
>>> Is there a proper, 'Packaging Guidelines friendly' way to ensure a
specific version of python?
>>>
>>> Is following fine?
>>>
>>> Requires: python>= 2.6
>>> BuildRequires: python2-devel>= 2.6
>>
>> Depends on the context and what you mean exactly by "Specific version of
>> python".
>
> Just adding a bit more context to Martin's post. Specifically in this
> case, the code being packaged no longer runs on python 2.4 (RHEL5). So
> we were looking for a way packaging method to ensure this wouldn't land
> on any RHEL5 systems, where it's not expected to work.
I think this will work:
Requires: python(abi) > 2.4
It won't prevent the package from being built for RHEL5. but it sure
won't install. :)
Ah, I completely forgot about the "python(abi)" format. This should do
the trick.
Thanks,
James
10:05 a.m.
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 10:59:30AM -0400, James Laska wrote:
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 09:24 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> On 08/10/2011 09:18 AM, Martin Krizek wrote:
> > Is there a proper, 'Packaging Guidelines friendly' way to ensure a
specific version of python?
> >
> > Is following fine?
> >
> > Requires: python>= 2.6
> > BuildRequires: python2-devel>= 2.6
>
> Depends on the context and what you mean exactly by "Specific version of
> python".
Just adding a bit more context to Martin's post. Specifically in this
case, the code being packaged no longer runs on python 2.4 (RHEL5). So
we were looking for a way packaging method to ensure this wouldn't land
on any RHEL5 systems, where it's not expected to work.
Rex's answer about the above working but python(abi) being added
automatically for Requires: is right on the button.
Just one note to add: if this is an application rather than a module there is
a python26 package in EPEL5 so it's conceivable that someone could add
enough python26 modules that this was possible. If it's a module, the
module would need to be renamed python26-MODULE anyway, so that's not a big
deal.
-Toshio
4640
days inactive
4640
days old
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
7 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
James Laska -
Martin Krizek -
Rex Dieter -
Tom Callaway -
Toshio Kuratomi