Re: [Fedora-packaging] Issue packaging python lib into RPM due to conflicting __init__.py

[Braddock]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thanks Michael, that provides some clarity.

I think I probably need to coordinate with the maintainer of the
python-backports-ssl_match_hostname package, because he is clobbering
the backports/__init__.py* namespace files we both need.  While I
could patch the __init__.py files to be identical, the compiled .pyc
files are never exactly the same.  They need to be factored out into a
separate package somehow.

My newbie question is how do I find the maintainer?  The RPM meta-data
only specifies "Fedora Project" as the maintainer.

- -braddock

>  Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 20:48:59 +0200 From: Michael Schwendt
>  <mschwendt(a)gmail.com&gt; To: packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org 
>  Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Issue packaging python lib into
>  RPM due to conflicting __init__.py Message-ID:
>  <20130707204859.10ed3776(a)faldor.intranet&gt; Content-Type: text/plain;
>  charset=utf-8
>  
>  On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 09:20:47 -0700, Braddock wrote:
>  
> > file /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/backports/__init__.py from 
> > install of backports.lzma-0.0.2-1.armv7hl conflicts with file
> > from package
> > python-backports-ssl_match_hostname-3.2-0.3.a3.fc18.noarch
>  
>  This means that both packages contain a file in that path, and
>  either the file checksum or the file permissions are not the same.
>  
> > I am uncertain how to resolve this.  Is there a way for an RPM to
> > only create the backports/__init__.py file if it does not already
> > exist?
>  
>  No. When you create these packages, _you_ need to ensure that they 
>  don't include conflicting files. How do those __init__.py files
>  differ in those multiple packages? Is it only a matter of different
>  versions of the backports module? Remember, you've got full control
>  over the package %{buildroot} at build-time, so you could delete
>  files you don't want and which are included in a separate (shared!)
>  package already.
>  
> > There are a number of packages which would want to live under
> > the backports/ module.
>  
>  That's okay, but it's not okay if they all contain a differing 
>  backports/__init__.py file.
>   
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR3cDuAAoJEHWLR/DQzlZuuFIH/08Y7qkxY01ZbRNV2aOLVZC+
> mjI3+QcR2bKPadDD2BALNyUT/ct36i7u3+endu+j1A8HHj2ls9iEIRisvIM5S9QM
> 3QuvWcDUR3rkQSZlDcqSiuKDbo0qJU297n/HW1YJmGYLdXW6ClbSU5vt0WYvd5vw
> 77hHRF86mvyKsd30rGRLzmbksOIz4nO6gdauh3fAgd2bGLIgJgsExBTSwz9yoV8b
> GVW66wfVREyFa3BmxvpoGnOczW/UoN1sNqDykVHx7EwXQAQ8HOlgB4poxsIY0AHu
> Fqwmsgj74G0RKAwqnRxT91n1J2xYhUNULXUx9ngnM81RkfOjkygE7ewaisOgbpg=
> =euFm
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Issue packaging python lib into RPM due to conflicting __init__.py

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> >>>> "B" == Braddock 
> <braddock(a)braddock.com&gt; writes: 
B> My newbie question is how do I find the maintainer?

You can look up the package at
http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/python-backports-ssl_match_hostname (see
"Ownership Info" at the top, among other useful things).  Or just mail
python-backports-ssl_match_hostname-owner(a)fedoraproject.org, or simply
file a bugzilla ticket against the package and it will go to the right
person.

B> The RPM meta-data only specifies "Fedora Project" as the maintainer.

Looking at the changelog (rpm -q --changelog) can also be useful.

 - J<

Issue packaging python lib into RPM due to conflicting __init__.py

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Jul 10, 2013 1:15 PM, "Braddock" <braddock(a)braddock.com&gt; wrote:
>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>
>  Thanks Michael, that provides some clarity.
>
>  I think I probably need to coordinate with the maintainer of the
>  python-backports-ssl_match_hostname package, because he is clobbering
>  the backports/__init__.py* namespace files we both need.  While I
>  could patch the __init__.py files to be identical, the compiled .pyc
>  files are never exactly the same.  They need to be factored out into a
>  separate package somehow.
>  
My hope would be that you could just rm the __init__.pyc,o, files.   If
there Ian't a meaningful difference in the .py files then there won't be a
meaningful difference in the pyc files either.  (The observed differences
would be sure to embedding timestamps rather than differences in code).

However, rm of those files in your package would leave you needing to
Require: the python-backports-ssl_match_hostname package as you will need
the __init__.py files installed at runtime.

There is a python-backports package that only provides the namespace on
pypi.  I talked to the python-backports-ssl-match-hostname maintainer about
packaging that and requiring it which he was going to do but I don't know
the status of that.  It's probably the way to go for both of your packages.

>  My newbie question is how do I find the maintainer?  The RPM
> meta-data
>  only specifies "Fedora Project" as the maintainer.
>  
Tibbs sent some links and pointers for finding this out on your own but I
also happen to know it is ianweller.

-Toshio

>  - -braddock
>
>  > Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 20:48:59 +0200 From: Michael Schwendt
>  > <mschwendt(a)gmail.com&gt; To: packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  > Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Issue packaging python lib into
>  > RPM due to conflicting __init__.py Message-ID:
>  > <20130707204859.10ed3776(a)faldor.intranet&gt; Content-Type: text/plain;
>  > charset=utf-8
>  >
>  > On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 09:20:47 -0700, Braddock wrote:
>  >
>  >> file /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/backports/__init__.py from
>  >> install of backports.lzma-0.0.2-1.armv7hl conflicts with file
>  >> from package
>  >> python-backports-ssl_match_hostname-3.2-0.3.a3.fc18.noarch
>  >
>  > This means that both packages contain a file in that path, and
>  > either the file checksum or the file permissions are not the same.
>  >
>  >> I am uncertain how to resolve this.  Is there a way for an RPM to
>  >> only create the backports/__init__.py file if it does not already
>  >> exist?
>  >
>  > No. When you create these packages, _you_ need to ensure that they
>  > don't include conflicting files. How do those __init__.py files
>  > differ in those multiple packages? Is it only a matter of different
>  > versions of the backports module? Remember, you've got full control
>  > over the package %{buildroot} at build-time, so you could delete
>  > files you don't want and which are included in a separate (shared!)
>  > package already.
>  >
>  >> There are a number of packages which would want to live under
>  >> the backports/ module.
>  >
>  > That's okay, but it's not okay if they all contain a differing
>  > backports/__init__.py file.
>  >
>
> >  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >  Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> >  Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> >
> >  iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR3cDuAAoJEHWLR/DQzlZuuFIH/08Y7qkxY01ZbRNV2aOLVZC+
> >  mjI3+QcR2bKPadDD2BALNyUT/ct36i7u3+endu+j1A8HHj2ls9iEIRisvIM5S9QM
> >  3QuvWcDUR3rkQSZlDcqSiuKDbo0qJU297n/HW1YJmGYLdXW6ClbSU5vt0WYvd5vw
> >  77hHRF86mvyKsd30rGRLzmbksOIz4nO6gdauh3fAgd2bGLIgJgsExBTSwz9yoV8b
> >  GVW66wfVREyFa3BmxvpoGnOczW/UoN1sNqDykVHx7EwXQAQ8HOlgB4poxsIY0AHu
> >  Fqwmsgj74G0RKAwqnRxT91n1J2xYhUNULXUx9ngnM81RkfOjkygE7ewaisOgbpg=
> >  =euFm
> >  -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
>  --
>  packaging mailing list
>  packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging