Hello fellow Python packagers. This is an announcement about a new set of RPM macros you can use to build PEP 517/518 enabled packages, that is Python packages that have the pyproject.toml file.
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0517/ https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0518/ https://snarky.ca/clarifying-pep-518/
The set of macros is designed for modern packaging with dynamic buildrequires in mind. The macros are in the pyproject-rpm-macros package and you can use them like this:
BuildRequires: pyproject-rpm-macros
%prep ...
%generate_buildrequires %pyproject_buildrequires -t
%build %pyproject_wheel
%install %pyproject_install
%check %tox
See the full documentation of the macros: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros/blob/master/f/README...
See example spec files: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pyproject-rpm-macros/blob/master/f/tests
(These use setuptools (setup.py), flit and poetry for build backends, but you cannot tell that from the specfiles - BuildRequires are generated dynamically from upstream metadata.)
The macros are **provisional**, i.e. their API may be changed upon feedback received from you. We are not (yet) interested in a general "update all the Python packages" hunt, but rather in early adopters.
If you have questions, ask here. We'll gladly extend the docs if something is not clear. If you find bugs, report them in bugzilla or here. Likewise for RFEs.
Happy hacking, Python Maintenance
Hi,
the Python (3) bindings are missing on RHEL/CentOS/EPEL 8 for the protobuf package (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/protobuf). A bug request has been created on Bugzilla ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1765844), but as no status has been given, I was wondering whether someone could shed some light on the context.
Since protobuf is a RedHat core package (maintained by RedHat and therefore not managed by Fedora/EPEL), it appears as a kind of black box from Fedora perspective. On Fedora (Rawhide, 31), the Python (3) bindings are generated/packaged (see for instance https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-e3a662fe8b and https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=19440119), but for some reason, those Python bindings are not generated by RedHat for RHEL/CentOS 8.
1. Would anyone from RedHat be able to provide some heads up on why those Python 3 bindings are missing for Protobuf, and/or an approximate timeline for when it would be generated? 2. Would RedHat need help with packaging protobuf on RHEL/CentOS/EPEL 8? 3. Would you recommend another way for Fedora packagers/users to get their hands on the python3-protobuf/protobuf-python3 package? For instance, through COPR, or some module we may have missed.
Kind regards
Denis
On 2019-11-11 11:45, Denis Arnaud wrote:
Hi,
the Python (3) bindings are missing on RHEL/CentOS/EPEL 8 for the protobuf package (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/protobuf). A bug request has been created on Bugzilla (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1765844), but as no status has been given, I was wondering whether someone could shed some light on the context.
Since protobuf is a RedHat core package (maintained by RedHat and therefore not managed by Fedora/EPEL), it appears as a kind of black box from Fedora perspective. On Fedora (Rawhide, 31), the Python (3) bindings are generated/packaged (see for instance https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-e3a662fe8b%C2%A0and https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=19440119), but for some reason, those Python bindings are not generated by RedHat for RHEL/CentOS 8.
- Would anyone from RedHat be able to provide some heads up on why
those Python 3 bindings are missing for Protobuf, and/or an approximate timeline for when it would be generated?
Hi! We just talked about this among Red Hat python-maint. (Sorry for the delay!) We don't have influence over this package; unfortunately we can't help directly.
- Would RedHat need help with packaging protobuf on RHEL/CentOS/EPEL 8?
At this level "Red Hat" is not a single entity. You're probably not reaching the right people on this list. If the packager isn't active in Fedora or on Bugzilla, then unfortunately, the way to get them to respond is to file a customer support ticket. Another way to approach this is change EPEL rules somehow to make it possible to build subpackages like this. From what I understand, it's being discussed, but it'll take time to get sorted out.
- Would you recommend another way for Fedora packagers/users to get
their hands on the python3-protobuf/protobuf-python3 package? For instance, through COPR, or some module we may have missed.
Building a replacement protobuf package in COPR is the best short-term solution.
Sorry I couldn't be more helpful.
python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Denis Arnaud -
Miro Hrončok -
Petr Viktorin