Since Fedora is now requiring python2 packages have a buildrequires of python2-setuptools, I put together a quick metapackage(0)(1) that in turn requires python-setuptools. This will make packaging for Fedora and epel to be somewhat easier.
What are your thoughts on this, and should we include this in epel?
As an alternative, it may not be a bad idea to have one large metapackage that builds sub-metapackages for the various similar situations. Thoughts on this?
John.
(0) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11912118 (1) http://rpms.jdulaney.com/review/python2-setuptools.spec
Excerpts from John Dulaney's message of 2015-11-19 17:11 -05:00:
Since Fedora is now requiring python2 packages have a buildrequires of python2-setuptools, I put together a quick metapackage(0)(1) that in turn requires python-setuptools. This will make packaging for Fedora and epel to be somewhat easier.
What are your thoughts on this, and should we include this in epel?
As an alternative, it may not be a bad idea to have one large metapackage that builds sub-metapackages for the various similar situations. Thoughts on this?
Would it be easier to request the RHEL packages to add a virtual Provides for the python2-* name? That is, python-setuptools in RHEL could provide python2-setuptools.
"DC" == Dan Callaghan dcallagh@redhat.com writes:
DC> Would it be easier to request the RHEL packages to add a virtual DC> Provides for the python2-* name? That is, python-setuptools in RHEL DC> could provide python2-setuptools.
I can't imagine Red Hat going through all of the bureaucracy to issue updates and creating that much churn for their customers to add a single Provide: to a number of packages when it could be trivially done on the EPEL side for the cost of a few empty packages.
Of course, if those packages are going to rev anyway then it would certainly be nice if the extra provide could be added. The metapackage could disappear from EPEL at that point.
- J<
On 11/23/2015 06:00 PM, Dan Callaghan wrote:
Excerpts from John Dulaney's message of 2015-11-19 17:11 -05:00:
Since Fedora is now requiring python2 packages have a buildrequires of python2-setuptools, I put together a quick metapackage(0)(1) that in turn requires python-setuptools. This will make packaging for Fedora and epel to be somewhat easier.
What are your thoughts on this, and should we include this in epel?
At first it struck me as an abomination, but I've come around.
As an alternative, it may not be a bad idea to have one large metapackage that builds sub-metapackages for the various similar situations. Thoughts on this?
I would go for the single meta-package, assuming we're talking more than 5 or so package that need this. And Version should be 0. I've attached my version. I've specified Release in the sub-package so that we don't have updates as packages are added/removed and the main release is bumped. Also set license to MIT as that is the default license for spec files, and that's about all this is.
Would it be easier to request the RHEL packages to add a virtual Provides for the python2-* name? That is, python-setuptools in RHEL could provide python2-setuptools.
Well, one has already been made for setuptools: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259474 with no comments so far. RHEL 7.2 just came out so it will certainly be no sooner than 7.3.
Would it be easier to request the RHEL packages to add a virtual Provides for the python2-* name? That is, python-setuptools in RHEL could provide python2-setuptools.
Probably.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284754
John.
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Dan Callaghan -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
John Dulaney -
Orion Poplawski