From: "Martin Bukatovic"
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 2:13:59 AM
Subject: visibility of pyp2rpm tool
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:
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:
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:
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
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:
I could help me with this feature request:
Thanks for the feedback.
Hi Martin, I like your ideas, the best way to move
this forward is to open a ticket for fpc.
python-devel mailing list