11:38 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I noted with interest, the python 2.4 upgrade.
I had hoped that bug request 120635 regarding integrating new python
macros into rpm would have been addressed as part of these changes.
Every spec file with a Python dependency has been individually modified
to facilitate this upgrade, and each could have benefited from using the
new macros.
I do hope an opportunity has not been missed.
Alan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBklIBCfroLk4EZpkRAlQBAKCd1HJRHnvw9YxQu49DvvuMSkSanACgncyA
nb/2/Te0MpmC79JLjYtO6nA=
=5WUf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
12:08 p.m.
Alan Milligan wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I noted with interest, the python 2.4 upgrade.
I had hoped that bug request 120635 regarding integrating new python
macros into rpm would have been addressed as part of these changes.
Every spec file with a Python dependency has been individually modified
to facilitate this upgrade, and each could have benefited from using the
new macros.
I do hope an opportunity has not been missed.
There is nothing at all stopping you (or Fedora) from configuring rpm in
/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/macros,
/etc/rpm/macros or ~/.rpmmacros if you wish. You can also add the
definitions to your own
package spec files.
What stops adding to rpm default configuration -- aside from the
instantly induced build
failures with older versions of rpm -- is lack of confirmation that the
macros at #120635
actually "work" with the thundering herd of python versions deployed,
with variant multilib
paths.
I've asked python guys regarding retrieving /usr/lib or /usr/lib64 paths
portably from python,
and have no clear indication one way or the other of the Right Thing To Do.
Get me confirmation that the changes work with python 2.[01234], and
perhaps python 1.5,
currently deployed and I will be happy to add default macros to rpm.
Otherwise, it
seems kinda pointless to add default macros that don't just "work"
everywhere imho.
73 de Jeff
8:44 a.m.
On Thursday 11 November 2004 01:38, Alan Milligan wrote:
I had hoped that bug request 120635 regarding integrating new python
macros into rpm would have been addressed as part of these changes.
Just some feedback about the macros ... (naming convention; nothing
about whether they should be in rpm.)
%pythonprefix - seems overkill; %{_prefix} will should cover well
%pythonversion - %pyver, %pybasever already exist ... would need
harmonization throughout all specs.
%pythonpath - suggest %pythonhome as naming (a la $JAVA_HOME)
Can someone share with me when get_python_lib() != get_python_lib(1)?
Inquiring minds want to know. %pythondir, %pyexecdir,
%python_sitearch, %python_sitelib, are pretty superfluous macros.
thanks,
--
-jeff
5:17 a.m.
Jeff Pitman wrote:
Can someone share with me when get_python_lib() != get_python_lib(1)?
Inquiring minds want to know. %pythondir, %pyexecdir,
%python_sitearch, %python_sitelib, are pretty superfluous macros.
# python -c 'from distutils import sysconfig; print
sysconfig.get_python_lib(1,0,prefix="/usr")'
/usr/lib64/python2.3/site-packages
# python -c 'from distutils import sysconfig; print
sysconfig.get_python_lib(0,0,prefix="/usr")'
/usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages
# uname -pm
ppc64 ppc64
differs for 64 bit!
7091
days inactive
7107
days old
4 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Alan Milligan -
Harald Hoyer -
Jeff Johnson -
Jeff Pitman -
Peter Jones