On 10 June 2015 at 08:41, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> wrote:
>>>>> "MB" == Martin Bukatovič
MB> The page doesn't discuss much any differences in guidelines for
MB> packages of python modules, python applications and when python
MB> project provides both.
It shouldn't really need to; the question isn't specific to python at
MB> Would you consider this to be important/useful enough for new
MB> packager to provide better guidance?
Perhaps a section in the main guidelines would be warranted. For some
reason I already thought it was there, but I don't see it while
searching. I'll see if I can draft something.
MB> Moreover would you think that listing few nicely packaged python
MB> projects on the wikipage would make sense?
That definitely doesn't belong in a packaging guideline.
I agree it doesn't make sense to include that information in the
Python packaging guidelines, but I think it does make sense to provide
such recommendations *somewhere*. We know cargo culting is inevitable,
so it at least makes sense to have a way for folks to find *good*
examples, rather than having them pick at random.
Along those lines, it would potentially be useful to have a Python
specific packaging *tutorial* on the wiki an an alternative to the
that assumes folks will be doing everything by hand.
For Python, it would make more sense to start with a tool like
Slavek's pyp2rpm to generate the initial SPEC file:
That will deal with a lot of basic aspects, and let packagers focus on
the delta between what pyp2rpm generates and what they need. As work
on the upstream Python metadata 2.0 spec proceeeds, we'll hopefully be
able to get that delta down to making changes to their *Python* level
metadata, and have the conversion to a policy compliant RPM be fully
automated in the vast majority of cases.
Such a page could also be linked from
providing a clearer entry point for Pythonistas already familiar with
Python's packaging tools into the RPM ecosystem.
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan(a)gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia