python-devel February 2016

python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

6 participants
3 discussions

my project's python3 unit tests passes, but fails during rpmbuild
by Martin Bukatovic 23 Feb '16

23 Feb '16

Dear python-devel, I'm playing with packaging of my little project[1] and I'm a bit puzzled about the following issue. When I go into git repo of my project and run unittests directly: ~~~ cd ~/projects/pylatest python2 setup.py test python3 setup.py test ~~~ Or via tox (which is configured to run both python2.7 and python3.4), it all works fine and both python2 and python3 test runs reports success. I have the following section in my specfile[3], which executes the tests during the build (this is suggested by Packaging:Python guidelines): ~~~ %check %{__python2} setup.py test %{__python3} setup.py test ~~~ But when the tests are executed via rpmbuild, python2 test run reports a pass, while python3 run fails[2]. This happens both on my local machine and in copr. At this point it's clear that I'm doing something wrong and would need to inspect and fix this failure in pylatest, but I'm concerned about something else in this email: 1) How come that running tests directly gives different outcome compared to test run executed during rpm build? Note that this seems not to be caused by different python version as it also happens on my local machine (so python version is the same). 2) Is this an expected behaviour? What do I miss then? If not, is this interesting enough to check this issue deeper? [1] https://github.com/marbu/pylatest [2] https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/marbu/pylatest-fedora/fedor… [3] https://github.com/marbu/specfiles/blob/1911be24ff130bf7d614694de5ae340b888… -- Martin Bukatovic

5 6

Fwd: [Bug 1221383] virtualenv 12.1.1 has been released
by Orion Poplawski 21 Feb '16

21 Feb '16

Do we need some more maintainers for virtualenv? Time to turn on upstream monitoring in pkgdb? https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python-virtualenv/ -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Bug 1221383] virtualenv 12.1.1 has been released Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2016 08:30:25 +0000 From: bugzilla(a)redhat.com To: orion(a)cora.nwra.com https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1221383 Christian Stadelmann <rhbz(a)genodeftest.de> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rhbz(a)genodeftest.de --- Comment #5 from Christian Stadelmann <rhbz(a)genodeftest.de> --- Now virtualenv 14.0.6 is available: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/virtualenv -- You are receiving this mail because: You reported the bug.

1 0

visibility of pyp2rpm tool
by Martin Bukatovic 11 Feb '16

11 Feb '16

Dear fedora-python-devel, I noticed a problem with pyp2rpm tool: it's a great tool, but it's hardly visible and new python packager can easily miss it. The fact that both Packaging:Python and SIGs/Python wikipages doesn't properly mention it doesn't really help as well. No fried of mine who recently started working on packaging his project is aware of this tool and I find out about it only because I had weird newcomer's kind of questions on this mailing list and people here were kind enough to point out that I should check it first. Initially I tried to kind of fix this issue by adding a line about this tool into SIGs/Python page some time ago: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=SIGs%2FPython&diff=418064&oldid… The problem is that this doesn't really solve anything. Now I rather feel that more changes are required. My current idea how to maintain rpm packages for my own python project is summed up here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Marbu/PythonPackaging Note that this is not a suggestion how the better description should look like. I link it here so that you can point out which part you disagree with (I'm not even a python sig member after all), so that we can catch possible disagreements as soon as possible. My suggestions below assumes that this makes sense. Keep in mind that I have hardly any real experience with python rpm packaging. So what exactly I have in mind? Compare this page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python with: https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Python The difference includes: * fedora Packaging:Python page is a packaging policy, which doesn't mention pyp2rpm at all * openSUSE:Packaging_Python page is more like a step by step intro, which includes a clean example how to use SUSE's py2pack tool See also: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Haskell which clearly points out to cabal-rpm tool right in the beginning. So my suggestions are: 1) Since the Packaging:Python page is the most visible, I would include quick intro about pyp2rpm as the first section here. 2) Mention Python SIG page here as well. 3) A beginner friendly howto with more details could be maintained separately linked from (or included in) revamped Python SIG page's "Packaging Quickstart" section. Moreover: I think that it would make sense to link older versions of the guidelines which are valid for epel 6 and 7 like ruby does here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby I could help me with this feature request: https://github.com/fedora-python/pyp2rpm/issues/25 Thanks for the feedback. -- Martin Bukatovic

3 4

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

python-devel February 2016