5:35 p.m.
Dear python-devel list,
I have few questions about the Packaging:Python wikipage[1],
with hope that this list is the right one for me to do so.
The page doesn't discuss much any differences in guidelines
for packages of python modules, python applications and
when python project provides both. For example both ruby
and haskell packaging guidelines covers this topic. Would you
consider this to be important/useful enough for new packager
to provide better guidance?
There is no mention of any semi automatic tools which would
try to create initial spec file based on metadata provided
in PyPI. Like bdist_rpm of distutils or py2pack. Do you use
them to create initial spec file? Is there any official
policy on this? Is there any reason not to use such tools?
Moreover would you think that listing few nicely packaged
python projects on the wikipage would make sense?
Besides that I puzzled about few other details which
involves "python 3 as default" requirements, but this I
leave out for now.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python
Thank you for your answer
Martin Bukatovic
5:41 p.m.
>>>> "MB" == Martin Bukatovič
<martin.bukatovic(a)gmail.com> writes:
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
all.
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.
- J<
10:25 p.m.
On 10 June 2015 at 08:41, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> wrote:
>>>>> "MB" == Martin Bukatovič
<martin.bukatovic(a)gmail.com> writes:
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
all.
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
generic https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package
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:
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pyp2rpm
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
https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/deployment.html#os-packaging-insta...,
providing a clearer entry point for Pythonistas already familiar with
Python's packaging tools into the RPM ecosystem.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan(a)gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
11:05 p.m.
>>>> "NC" == Nick Coghlan
<ncoghlan(a)gmail.com> writes:
NC> I agree it doesn't make sense to include that information in the
NC> Python packaging guidelines, but I think it does make sense to
NC> provide such recommendations *somewhere*.
I obviously agree, given that I wrote that I would try and draft
something. Just haven't had much time yet.
NC> Along those lines, it would potentially be useful to have a Python
NC> specific packaging *tutorial* on the wiki an an alternative to the
NC> generic https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package
NC> that assumes folks will be doing everything by hand.
That's certainly not a bad idea. It's a wiki; feel free to run with it.
NC> For Python, it would make more sense to start with a tool like
NC> Slavek's pyp2rpm to generate the initial SPEC file:
NC> https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pyp2rpm
The problem with doing any of this now is that the python guidelines are
in significant flux and will hopefully emerge in a much cleaner state
with various convenience macros to handle the bulk of the heavy lifting.
- J<
11:38 p.m.
On 11 June 2015 at 14:05, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> wrote:
>>>>> "NC" == Nick Coghlan
<ncoghlan(a)gmail.com> writes:
NC> I agree it doesn't make sense to include that information in the
NC> Python packaging guidelines, but I think it does make sense to
NC> provide such recommendations *somewhere*.
I obviously agree, given that I wrote that I would try and draft
something. Just haven't had much time yet.
Ah, my apologies - I missed that sentence when I read your reply.
NC> Along those lines, it would potentially be useful to have a
Python
NC> specific packaging *tutorial* on the wiki an an alternative to the
NC> generic https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package
NC> that assumes folks will be doing everything by hand.
That's certainly not a bad idea. It's a wiki; feel free to run with it.
My own packaging experience is limited enough that I don't consider
myself qualified to provide advice on how best to go about it - my
involvement in Fedora's Python policy development has been from an
upstream perspective rather than a Fedora perspective.
NC> For Python, it would make more sense to start with a tool
like
NC> Slavek's pyp2rpm to generate the initial SPEC file:
NC> https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pyp2rpm
The problem with doing any of this now is that the python guidelines are
in significant flux and will hopefully emerge in a much cleaner state
with various convenience macros to handle the bulk of the heavy lifting.
Yeah, that makes sense. Once it settles down again and pyp2rpm can be
updated accordingly, then a simpler getting started guide will be
easier to write and maintain.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan(a)gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
11:43 p.m.
On 11 June 2015 at 14:38, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan(a)gmail.com> wrote:
My own packaging experience is limited enough that I don't
consider
Heh, that's specifically *Fedora* packaging experience. Software
packaging and distribution in general is a very different story :)
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan(a)gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
6:36 p.m.
On 06/11/2015 05:25 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
Along those lines, it would potentially be useful to have a Python
specific packaging *tutorial* on the wiki an an alternative to the
generic https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package
that assumes folks will be doing everything by hand.
Yes, having some quick start howto for Python (besides the guideline)
would be really useful. It doesn't have to go deep into details.
For Python, it would make more sense to start with a tool like
Slavek's pyp2rpm to generate the initial SPEC file:
https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pyp2rpm
Thank you for pointer to this tool. I missed it when searching
for specfile generators.
So that's something I had in mind when asking: which tool is suggested
to be used to create initial specfile? what needs to be tweaked
and how? And so on - which on the one hand obviously doesn't belong
to the packaging guideline, but guidelines of some other languages
(originally mentioned haskell or ruby) did include some note and
guidance about it so I was a bit confused what does that mean for
python packaging.
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
https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/deployment.html#os-packaging-insta...,
providing a clearer entry point for Pythonistas already familiar with
Python's packaging tools into the RPM ecosystem.
3235
days inactive
3237
days old
python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
6 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Martin Bukatovic -
Nick Coghlan