RPM 4.19: Dynamic subpackages with Python extras
by Miro Hrončok
Hello Python packagers.
RPM 4.19 introduces this feature:
https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/dynamic_specs.html
I decided to write this email to gather my thoughts. I believe that with this,
we can turn manual Python extras subpackages like this:
%package -n python3-...
Summary: %{summary}
%description -n python3-... %_description
%pyproject_extras_subpkg -n python3-xxx extra1 extra2
(See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#Extras
for what that means.)
Into something like this:
%package -n python3-...
Summary: %{summary}
%description -n python3-... %_description
...
%install
%pyproject_install
...
%pyproject_generate_extras_subpkgs -n python3-xxx
The %pyproject_generate_extras_subpkgs macro would parse the installed
.dist-info directory to find out what extras are available and generate
subpackages for all of them.
(Obviously, the macro name is open up for discussion.)
----------------
An API would be required to exclude extras:
- that are not useful for other packages
(for example build/development requirements, commonly named dev, doc or test)
- that have requirements that are not packaged in Fedora
For example (mimicking the API of %pyproject_check_import):
%pyproject_generate_extras_subpkgs -n python3-xxx -e test -e 'nonfree*'
----------------
However, extras are also currently manually passed to %pyproject_buildrequires:
%generate_buildrequires
%pyproject_buildrequires -x extra1 -x extra2 -x test
It should already be possible to implement automatic extras discovery in
%pyproject_buildrequires with older RPM versions and allow it to be used this way:
%generate_buildrequires
%pyproject_buildrequires <FLAG_TO_ENABLE_ALL_EXTRAS> -X 'nonfree*'
RPM macros can only accept short flags, so <FLAG_TO_ENABLE_ALL_EXTRAS> can
either be -x '*' (if we start treating -x values as globs, which is backwards
compatible and probably generally useful), or a single-letter switch such as -a
(but honestly we are running out of meaningful letters).
(When -X is used, <FLAG_TO_ENABLE_ALL_EXTRAS> can probably be implied. However,
an explicit form needs to exist for packages that don't need to exclude any
extras at all.)
Eventually, I'd like to make <FLAG_TO_ENABLE_ALL_EXTRAS> the default, once RPM
4.19 is omnipresent.
----------------
Combined, this would mean that the packager needs to:
1. specify extras that are not supposed to be used as BRs
2. specify extras that are not supposed to be packaged
In the ideal word (2) is a superset of (1).
Should %pyproject_generate_extras_subpkgs somehow inherit the -Xes from
%pyproject_buildrequires?
When a package has extra1, extra2, nonfree1, nonfree2 and test extras, one
could do:
%generate_buildrequires
%pyproject_buildrequires <FLAG_TO_ENABLE_ALL_EXTRAS> -X 'nonfree*'
...
%pyproject_install
...
%pyproject_generate_extras_subpkgs -X test
That would mean:
- extra1 is BRed and packaged
- extra2 is BRed and packaged
- test is BRed but not packaged
- nonfree1 is neither
- nonfree2 is neither
----------------
Alternatively the information could be supplied by %globals:
%global _python_ignored_extras nonfree*
%global _python_unpackaged_extras test
However, I somehow dislike this approach.
----------------
I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
4 days, 21 hours
- 5
- 8
Re: RPM 4.18.1 released!
by Miro Hrončok
On 14. 03. 23 12:27, Michal Domonkos wrote:
> This is a bug fix release addressing a number of regressions and other issues.
> Highlights include:
>
> * Preserve packages bit-by-bit when adding and then removing signatures
> * Fix install of block and character special files
> * Disable debuginfod server lookups during package builds
> * Plugin fixes (fapolicyd and selinux)
> * Various OpenPGP and macro parser fixes
>
> Details and download info at
>
> https://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.18.1
Hello.
> Restore BuildRequires check in rpmbuild -bp (regression in 4.15.0)
Does this mean I cannot run rpmbuild -bp (and hence e.g. fedpkg prep in Fedora)
without installing all the build dependencies? Or did I understand that wrongly?
> Issue a deprecation warning on %patchN syntax
Is there a timeframe for actual removal? There are ~10k such lines in ~3.3k
Fedora Rawhide packages.
> Don’t embed CPU count of build system in packages (#2343)
I worry that the way this was fixed is probably a breaking change. Packages out
there use e.g. SPHINXOPTS='%{?_smp_mflags}' (~50 Fedora packages) which will
turn into SPHINXOPTS='-j${RPM_BUILD_NCPUS}' which will not work.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
2 months, 2 weeks
- 1
- 0
Automatic virtual provides for RPM macros?
by Miro Hrončok
Hello,
today at Nest, somebody said "unfortunately, there is no way to tell what
package to install to get a particular RPM macro".
I think that having an RPM provides generator for "rpm-macro(__python3)" or
similar should be a fairly simple exercise.
Would you folks consider that useful?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
2 months, 2 weeks
- 4
- 4
- ← Newer
- 1
- Older →