python-devel February 2022

python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

8 participants
5 discussions

why opencv Python package doesn't provide python3dist(opencv-python) ?
by Sérgio Basto 16 Mar '22

16 Mar '22

Hi, Can someone help me ? https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/opencv/blob/rawhide/f/opencv.spec have py_provides but https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2054951 Thank you . -- Sérgio M. B.

2 1

Request for packager: jello
by Kelly Brazil 01 Mar '22

01 Mar '22

Hi team, I am the developer of JC and Jello. JC is currently packaged for Fedora and I would like to see if anyone would consider packaging Jello as well? Or would you know someone interested in doing so? I created a src rpm spec similar to what we used for JC, so it should be pretty straightforward. (This was done a while back - the latest jello version is now 1.5.2) Spec URL: https://jello-packages.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/fedora/jello.spec Description: Query JSON at the command line with Python syntax Fedora Account System Username: kellyjonbrazil(a)gmail.com https://github.com/kellyjonbrazil/jello Thanks! Kelly

3 3

PyPI naming issue
by Nikola Forró 28 Feb '22

28 Feb '22

Hello, I've been working on a Python library for RPM spec file manipulation [1]. I've packaged it as python-specfile in Fedora [2], however, PyPI doesn't accept the name "specfile". I've opened an issue [3], but there hasn't been any development so far. Would you be able to help me? Or should I perhaps resort to using "python-specfile" on PyPI? Thanks, Nikola [1] https://github.com/packit/specfile [2] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-specfile [3] https://github.com/pypa/pypi-support/issues/1667

2 2

Should python3dist(...) provides generator fail when the version is = 0?
by Miro Hrončok 08 Feb '22

08 Feb '22

Hello Pythonistas, today, I've looked up packages in rawhide providing python3dist(...) = 0 and I opened bugzillas for them: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=python3dist0 While version 0 (or equal versions like 0.0 or 0.0.0) is probably technically valid, it most certainly indicates a packaging error (most likely but not necessarily a downstream packaging error). Should we prevent this error from happening by explicitly erroring (and failing the build) when it happens? I think it would make the dependency generators more robust. In an unlikely scenario when packagers actually want to package version 0, they can reach out and we can allow it via some configuration (but [YAGNI], so I don't want to clutter the generator with yet another option right away). [YAGNI] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_aren%27t_gonna_need_it -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

4 3

pyproject-rpm-macros 1.0.0~rc1 available in EPEL 9 buildroot
by Miro Hrončok 04 Feb '22

04 Feb '22

Hello Pythonistats, just letting you know that as of today, I can finally see pyproject-rpm-macros-1.0.0~rc1-1.el9.noarch in the EPEL 9 Koji buildroot. That means, the %pyproject_* macros should now have identical features and behavior across Fedora and EPEL 9. Happy packaging, -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

1 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

python-devel February 2022