On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:56 PM Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com wrote:
Hello Python packagers.
RPM 4.19 introduces this feature:
https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/dynamic_specs.html
I decided to write this email to gather my thoughts. I believe that with this, we can turn manual Python extras subpackages like this:
Is there a reason not to write a brp script so that users won't have to do anything manually at all? Basically scan the sitelibdir for the dist-info and create necessary parts from there?
%package -n python3-... Summary: %{summary}
%description -n python3-... %_description
%pyproject_extras_subpkg -n python3-xxx extra1 extra2
(See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#Extras for what that means.)
Into something like this:
%package -n python3-... Summary: %{summary}
%description -n python3-... %_description ...
%install %pyproject_install ... %pyproject_generate_extras_subpkgs -n python3-xxx
The %pyproject_generate_extras_subpkgs macro would parse the installed .dist-info directory to find out what extras are available and generate subpackages for all of them.
(Obviously, the macro name is open up for discussion.)
An API would be required to exclude extras:
- that are not useful for other packages
(for example build/development requirements, commonly named dev, doc or test)
- that have requirements that are not packaged in Fedora
For example (mimicking the API of %pyproject_check_import):
%pyproject_generate_extras_subpkgs -n python3-xxx -e test -e 'nonfree*'
However, extras are also currently manually passed to %pyproject_buildrequires:
%generate_buildrequires %pyproject_buildrequires -x extra1 -x extra2 -x test
It should already be possible to implement automatic extras discovery in %pyproject_buildrequires with older RPM versions and allow it to be used this way:
%generate_buildrequires %pyproject_buildrequires <FLAG_TO_ENABLE_ALL_EXTRAS> -X 'nonfree*'
RPM macros can only accept short flags, so <FLAG_TO_ENABLE_ALL_EXTRAS> can either be -x '*' (if we start treating -x values as globs, which is backwards compatible and probably generally useful), or a single-letter switch such as -a (but honestly we are running out of meaningful letters).
(When -X is used, <FLAG_TO_ENABLE_ALL_EXTRAS> can probably be implied. However, an explicit form needs to exist for packages that don't need to exclude any extras at all.)
Eventually, I'd like to make <FLAG_TO_ENABLE_ALL_EXTRAS> the default, once RPM 4.19 is omnipresent.
Combined, this would mean that the packager needs to:
- specify extras that are not supposed to be used as BRs
- specify extras that are not supposed to be packaged
In the ideal word (2) is a superset of (1).
Should %pyproject_generate_extras_subpkgs somehow inherit the -Xes from %pyproject_buildrequires?
When a package has extra1, extra2, nonfree1, nonfree2 and test extras, one could do:
%generate_buildrequires %pyproject_buildrequires <FLAG_TO_ENABLE_ALL_EXTRAS> -X 'nonfree*'
...
%pyproject_install ... %pyproject_generate_extras_subpkgs -X test
That would mean:
- extra1 is BRed and packaged
- extra2 is BRed and packaged
- test is BRed but not packaged
- nonfree1 is neither
- nonfree2 is neither
Alternatively the information could be supplied by %globals:
%global _python_ignored_extras nonfree* %global _python_unpackaged_extras test
However, I somehow dislike this approach.
I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
-- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.... Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue