[Bug 1771750] New: Review Request: python3-libcomps - Python 3 bindings for libcomps library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771750
Bug ID: 1771750 Summary: Review Request: python3-libcomps - Python 3 bindings for libcomps library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mikedep333@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://github.com/mikedep333/libcomps-rpm/blob/c7-py3-bindings-only/python3... SRPM URL: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mikedep333/pulp_rpm_deps/package/pyt... Description: Python 3 bindings for libcomps library Fedora Account System Username: mikedep333
*This is an EPEL7 only package.*
This is a follow up to this thread: "Missing Python 3 bindings for C libraries in EL7" https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771750
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ngompa13@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |ngompa13@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- This package cannot be added to EPEL7, as it will conflict with EL7's libcomps package, due to it providing the libcomps.so.* libraries.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771750
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771750
--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Significant tweaking will need to be done to make this work. Either a patch will be required to make the library build statically into the Python module library, or the soname needs to be changed so that it isn't conflicting with the libcomps package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771750
--- Comment #3 from Michael DePaulo mikedep333@gmail.com --- Neal, I made it exclude those files. They are merely built as a byproduct. It depends on the original "libcomps" RPM. Is this acceptable?
[mdepaulo@mdepaulo libcomps]$ rpm -qlp python36-libcomps-0.1.8-12.el7.x86_64.rpm /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/libcomps /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/libcomps/__init__.py /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/libcomps/__pycache__ /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/libcomps/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-36.opt-1.pyc /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/libcomps/__pycache__/__init__.cpython-36.pyc /usr/lib64/python3.6/site-packages/libcomps/_libpycomps.so /usr/share/doc/python36-libcomps-0.1.8 /usr/share/doc/python36-libcomps-0.1.8/README.md /usr/share/licenses/python36-libcomps-0.1.8 /usr/share/licenses/python36-libcomps-0.1.8/COPYING
I did push a new commit a little while ago, to adapt to the example more of python3-rpm. Particularly for the binary PRM being "python36-libcomps".
I realized that I still have a little more work to do on the egg-info (for the Pulp project's needs.) I am working on a PR to upstream libcomps for that, then I'll backport it as a patch for the packaging. We did the same thing for createrepo_c.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771750
--- Comment #4 from Michael DePaulo mikedep333@gmail.com --- Neal,
FYI: On the Pulp team, we are currently pausing working on this.
We are debating whether to use this bindings-only RPM, or finishing creating & putting a "libcomps" pip/scikit-build package on PyPI that includes building the C library. (like we did for createrepo_c)
I may finish this contribution to EPEL7, but I would do it in my free time within 2 weeks or so.
-Mike
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771750
--- Comment #5 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- This spec seems fine, but I can't run it through fedora-review because you're linking to html pages. Can you please provide direct links?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771750
--- Comment #6 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com ---
Requires: %{orig_name}% = %{version} Requires: %{orig_name}% >= %{version}-%{release}
You probably don't want to specifically do "Requires: %orig_name >= %version-%release" there, as it's quite likely that will have unintended consequences as this package gets updated out of band.
You probably want a Conflicts stanza:
Conflicts: %{orig_name} < 0.1.8-12
That way, this doesn't break if the release goes out of sync.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771750
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |ppisar@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1771750
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review- |needinfo?(mikedep333@gmail. | |com) Assignee|ngompa13@gmail.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
--- Comment #7 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com --- Review seems stuck, resetting status and setting the NEEDINFO flag against the submitter. Micheal are you still interested in this?
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com