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, 19 hours
- 5
- 8
Problem with GNU Hello tutorial (makeinfo not found)
by Betty Liu
Sorry I don't know if here is the right place... I'm going through the guide https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Packaging_Tutori... and get stuck with this error. I'm using f37 and copy-paste the complete spec file from the tutorial. I got log like this
/builddir/build/BUILD/hello-2.10/build-aux/missing: line 81: makeinfo: command not found
WARNING: 'makeinfo' is missing on your system.
You should only need it if you modified a '.texi' file, or
any other file indirectly affecting the aspect of the manual.
You might want to install the Texinfo package:
<http://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/>
The spurious makeinfo call might also be the consequence of
using a buggy 'make' (AIX, DU, IRIX), in which case you might
want to install GNU make:
<http://www.gnu.org/software/make/>
make[2]: *** [Makefile:1672: doc/hello.info] Error 127
make[2]: Leaving directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/hello-2.10'
make[1]: *** [Makefile:1878: install-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/hello-2.10'
make: *** [Makefile:2371: install] Error 2
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ZXjHGy (%install)
Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ZXjHGy (%install)
RPM build errors:
Child return code was: 1
EXCEPTION: [Error('Command failed: \n # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M 84f181e5739b49f4a2487143cf73171e -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-36-x86_64/root -a -u mockbuild --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.nywzq12a:/etc/resolv.conf --bind=/dev/btrfs-control --bind=/dev/mapper/control --bind=/dev/loop-control --bind=/dev/loop0 --bind=/dev/loop1 --bind=/dev/loop2 --bind=/dev/loop3 --bind=/dev/loop4 --bind=/dev/loop5 --bind=/dev/loop6 --bind=/dev/loop7 --bind=/dev/loop8 --bind=/dev/loop9 --bind=/dev/loop10 --bind=/dev/loop11 --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/builddir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin --setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\\033]0;<mock-chroot>\\007" --setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \\s-\\v\\$ --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --setenv=http_proxy=socks5://127.0.0.1:1090 --setenv=https_proxy=socks5://127.0.0.1:1090 --resolv-conf=off bash --login -c /usr/bin/rpmbuild -bb --target x86_64 --nodeps /builddir/build/SPECS/hel
lo.spec\n', 1)]
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/mockbuild/trace_decorator.py", line 93, in trace
result = func(*args, **kw)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/mockbuild/util.py", line 598, in do_with_status
raise exception.Error("Command failed: \n # %s\n%s" % (command, output), child.returncode)
mockbuild.exception.Error: Command failed:
# /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M 84f181e5739b49f4a2487143cf73171e -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-36-x86_64/root -a -u mockbuild --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.nywzq12a:/etc/resolv.conf --bind=/dev/btrfs-control --bind=/dev/mapper/control --bind=/dev/loop-control --bind=/dev/loop0 --bind=/dev/loop1 --bind=/dev/loop2 --bind=/dev/loop3 --bind=/dev/loop4 --bind=/dev/loop5 --bind=/dev/loop6 --bind=/dev/loop7 --bind=/dev/loop8 --bind=/dev/loop9 --bind=/dev/loop10 --bind=/dev/loop11 --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/builddir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin --setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007" --setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v\$ --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --setenv=http_proxy=socks5://127.0.0.1:1090 --setenv=https_proxy=socks5://127.0.0.1:1090 --resolv-conf=off bash --login -c /usr/bin/rpmbuild -bb --target x86_64 --nodeps /builddir/build/SPECS/hello.spec
But I have already install texifo, is there anything else I need to change? Or any more information I need to provide?
Thanks a lot.
Betty
6 days, 8 hours
- 4
- 4
- ← Newer
- 1
- Older →