Hi,
Great work !
FYI it's on my pile in the bug tracker in Python. I'll try to work on
these before Pycon
Also, note that I am planning to release Distutils as a standalone
package before Pycon;
since the current trunk targets Python 2.3 to 3.1
Regards
Tarek
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Gerry Reno <greno(a)verizon.net> wrote:
Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:
Hello, guys,
I have fixed distutils (and setuptools remains working) with the attached
patch. Now, RPMs will be built according to the Fedora Package Naming
Guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Non-Numeric_Vers...
which I understand to be the most useful reference in terms of naming
pre-release packages. This should work correctly in at least:
- Fedora
- RHEL
- SUSE
I urge you patch your python 2.4s and 2.5s and 2.6s and push this update to
distributions. I have done that myself at my own repository.
Now we can enjoy one more reason to build RPMs (and eggs! ... according to
my workbench at
http://yum.rudd-o.com/SCRIPTS/ -- feel free to pick its
brains) DIRECTLY from the cheese shop, especially if you're using pip.
Oh, I also have pip at my repo (cd ../RPMS/noarch in my workbench).
See attached patch. I will log bugs where it corresponds too.
--
Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <rudd-o(a)rudd-o.com>
Rudd-O.com -
http://rudd-o.com/
GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at
http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
Now playing, courtesy of Amarok: Aqua - Cartoon heroes
Windows 95 is not a virus. Viruses actually do something.
Hi Manuel,
You worked on my problem! Great.
So today what we have been doing to deal with the pre-release and lexical
ordering problem involving pre-releases is this:
We impose a restriction on how the pre-release is identified. So for
example if you intend to end up with a final version-release of 5.0.0-1 and
you want to first put out some betas or release candidates then we have to
name them as, 5.0.0-0_beta1, or 5.0.0-0_rc1 and this is so that the lexical
ordering for RPM will be correct. In other words you must put the
pre-release designation into the 'release' part of VERSION-RELEASE. What we
had seen developers doing previously was to name these as 5.0.0_beta1 or
5.0.0_rc1 (making the pre-release designation part of the 'version' string)
which then did not work for the lexical ordering of the final release of
5.0.0-1 because 5.0.0 (version) was not lexically superior to 5.0.0_rc1. So
we were able to solve this problem without any code changes to distutils.
But this also presented a challenge for the other distribution targets such
as 'sdist' because they were totally unaware of this 'version-release'
combination and only knew about 'version'. So as a workaround we were doing
this:
# WORKAROUND
# define both version AND release
version='5.0.0'
release='1'
# combine them for all targets except 'bdist_rpm'
if sys.argv[1] != 'bdist_rpm':
version = version+'-'+release
So this wasn't perfect but it actually worked quite well and we could get
'sdist' to work properly in conjunction with 'bdist_rpm'.
So now with your patch all the targets should be able to set and use both
'version' and 'release' and we don't need our workaround and that
will be
great.
Regards,
Gerry