Per https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/782, "Forbid %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files" Python packages should not blindly glob contents of the sitelib/sitearch directories.
This makes sense, in fact, I just got bit by this packaging python- sphinx-hoverxref (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872508) -- for some reason a `tests` directory also get copied to buildroot and thus get packaged.
`rpmdev-newspec python-foo` still produces a spec with globbing though. This is just a matter of omission, I presume? I can put up a PR fixing this.
Cheers,
On 26. 08. 20 19:59, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
Per https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/782, "Forbid %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files" Python packages should not blindly glob contents of the sitelib/sitearch directories.
This makes sense, in fact, I just got bit by this packaging python- sphinx-hoverxref (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872508) -- for some reason a `tests` directory also get copied to buildroot and thus get packaged.
`rpmdev-newspec python-foo` still produces a spec with globbing though. This is just a matter of omission, I presume? I can put up a PR fixing this.
I don't really know who maintains `rpmdev-newspec python-foo` but the output (when I run this on Fedora 32) is really severely outdated beyond being any useful. I remember trying to update the template many years ago but got stuck at EPEL-compatibility issues.
On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 20:23 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 26. 08. 20 19:59, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
Per https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/782, "Forbid %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files" Python packages should not blindly glob contents of the sitelib/sitearch directories.
This makes sense, in fact, I just got bit by this packaging python- sphinx-hoverxref ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872508) -- for some reason a `tests` directory also get copied to buildroot and thus get packaged.
`rpmdev-newspec python-foo` still produces a spec with globbing though. This is just a matter of omission, I presume? I can put up a PR fixing this.
I don't really know who maintains `rpmdev-newspec python-foo` but the output (when I run this on Fedora 32) is really severely outdated beyond being any useful. I remember trying to update the template many years ago but got stuck at EPEL-compatibility issues.
Neal maintains rpmdevtools, both on src.fp.o and on Pagure
I'll get a PR in to make the Python spec a bit more up to date. This brings to mind that I've been intendeing to have a spec template and a packaging guideline for Lua for a while; that can go next.
Thanks,
On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 15:16 -0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 20:23 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
I don't really know who maintains `rpmdev-newspec python-foo` but the output (when I run this on Fedora 32) is really severely outdated beyond being any useful. I remember trying to update the template many years ago but got stuck at EPEL-compatibility issues.
Neal maintains rpmdevtools, both on src.fp.o and on Pagure
I'll get a PR in to make the Python spec a bit more up to date. This brings to mind that I've been intendeing to have a spec template and a packaging guideline for Lua for a while; that can go next.
So: F32 has rpmdevtools 8.10, which was first released... over three years ago
* Sat Jan 14 2017 Ville Skyttä ville.skytta@iki.fi - 8.10-1
The spec in pagure is updated (including a patch Miro committed last year), but looks like it's only built for F33 and F34 right now.
Neal, we should be able to release this for F32, right? Most packagers are likely to still be on it rather than on the recently branched F33 so it probably would save some review time.
Best,
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 6:25 PM Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name wrote:
On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 15:16 -0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 20:23 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
I don't really know who maintains `rpmdev-newspec python-foo` but the output (when I run this on Fedora 32) is really severely outdated beyond being any useful. I remember trying to update the template many years ago but got stuck at EPEL-compatibility issues.
Neal maintains rpmdevtools, both on src.fp.o and on Pagure
I'll get a PR in to make the Python spec a bit more up to date. This brings to mind that I've been intendeing to have a spec template and a packaging guideline for Lua for a while; that can go next.
So: F32 has rpmdevtools 8.10, which was first released... over three years ago
- Sat Jan 14 2017 Ville Skyttä ville.skytta@iki.fi - 8.10-1
The spec in pagure is updated (including a patch Miro committed last year), but looks like it's only built for F33 and F34 right now.
Neal, we should be able to release this for F32, right? Most packagers are likely to still be on it rather than on the recently branched F33 so it probably would save some review time.
I am not releasing rpmdevtools 9.x to F32 or older because I've changed default behaviors for 9.0 and replaced the spectool implementation.
On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 18:46 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 6:25 PM Michel Alexandre Salim michel@michel-slm.name wrote:
So: F32 has rpmdevtools 8.10, which was first released... over three years ago
- Sat Jan 14 2017 Ville Skyttä ville.skytta@iki.fi - 8.10-1
The spec in pagure is updated (including a patch Miro committed last year), but looks like it's only built for F33 and F34 right now.
Neal, we should be able to release this for F32, right? Most packagers are likely to still be on it rather than on the recently branched F33 so it probably would save some review time.
I am not releasing rpmdevtools 9.x to F32 or older because I've changed default behaviors for 9.0 and replaced the spectool implementation.
Ack. That probably means I'll run F33 sooner rather than later, at least in a toolbox container.
Thanks,
python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org