From: "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek"
<zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl>
To: "Fedora Python SIG" <python-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 2:54:44 AM
Subject: Re: Inconsistencies in the Fedora Packaging Guidelines for Python
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 05:35:03PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 21.3.2016 20:13, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 06:46:00PM -0000, Tomas Orsava wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Since the spec file does package both p2 and p3 versions of the
> >>> executable
> >>
> >>
> >> There's a difference between *modules* (in the Python sense,
> >> i.e. Python libraries) and *executables*. We almost always want
> >> to provide modules for both Python versions, but executables
> >> only rarely so.
> >>
> >> The example spec file does *not* package both versions of the
> >> executable.
> >
> >
> > Yes, it does.
Ah, OK. It didn't at some point and I didn't check.
It seems that the Guidelines:Python page could still use some
editing. I think most of the info is there, but it's not very clear.
In particular, the multiple-executables case is again very prominent
(as this thread shows), and it's really applicable to a miniscule
percentage of packages (literally: sphinx, pytest, nosetest, a bunch
of python development and installation tools. There's a spattering
of other random packages, which might be mistakes. E.g. python-nibabel
also provides versioned executables, but that I don't think there's a
good reason for that). The way that Guidelines are written only serves
to confuse packagers.
> > %files -n python2-%{srcname}
> > %license COPYING
> > %doc README.rst
> > %{python2_sitelib}/*
> > %{_bindir}/sample-exec-2.7 <---- HERE
> >
> > %files -n python3-%{srcname}
> > %license COPYING
> > %doc README.rst
> > %{python3_sitelib}/*
> > %{_bindir}/sample-exec <---- HERE
> > %{_bindir}/sample-exec-3.4 <---- HERE
> >
> >
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Example_common_spec_file
>
> I would suggest that the unversioned binary shouldn't necessarily be
> part of a versioned python package (like pythonX-<module>), but I
> guess this is something that people expect these days anyway...
The alternative would to add yet another subpackage. Most of the
time that would be overkill. In the common case it works just fine
to put the binaries in py2 or py3 subpackage.
Zbyszek
_______________________________________________
python-devel mailing list
python-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/python-devel@lists.fedoraproje...