On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 11:15:55AM -0600, Ian Weller wrote:
On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 05:59:00PM +0100, Nicola Soranzo wrote:
> Il giorno ven, 03/02/2012 alle 09.47 -0600, Ian Weller ha scritto:
> > On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 02:44:55PM +0100, Nicola Soranzo wrote:
> > > - python-apipkg, review request
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/652034
> >
> > Just looked a little bit more and it looks like python-py is bundling
> > this from upstream, and that's not okay either :) So I'll add that
> > review request to the list and also note that I need to submit a bug
> > against python-py to unbundle apipkg.
>
> It looks like that both apipkg and py are maintained by the same guy
> (Holger Krekel):
>
>
http://bitbucket.org/hpk42/apipkg
>
https://bitbucket.org/hpk42/py
>
> apipkg is probably just a subset of py.
I'm going to ask upstream if apipkg is updated properly in py, and then
ask the python-py maintainer to add a Provides: python-apipkg. And then
close the python-apipkg review request assuming that all goes through
just fine.
Or maybe I'll ask FPC.
(This is stupid.)
I haven't inspected code, just file locations and names but it looks like it
should be unbundled and packaged separately.
pyhton-py includes:
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/py/_apipkg.py
This is not a toplevel module and it's marked as private (_* is convention
for private). So the module in py is not equivalent to a separate package.
Which means that we don't have two packages providing the same thing. We
have one package that's bundling another.
-Toshio