On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 6:41 AM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik@greysector.net> wrote:
Hello, Richard.
On Wednesday, 20 March 2019 at 14:44, Richard Shaw wrote:
> I have worked around this temporarily by skipping %build and just
> performing the install which also automatically performs builds. Any advice
> setuptools experts would be appreciated.

That doesn't seem like a good solution. I'm no setuptools expert though.
What does upstream say about that?

Yeah, I'm leaning towards just doing the three CMake builds instead...

 
> Problem 2:
> Trying to rationally break up the monolithic project into rational
> sub-packages (including -devel).
>
> Right now I've got the following:
> pyside2-tools-5.12.1-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
> python3-pyside2-5.12.1-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
> python3-pyside2-devel-5.12.1-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
> python3-shiboken2-5.12.1-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
> python-pyside2-5.12.1-1.fc31.src.rpm
> shiboken2-5.12.1-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
>
> But getting the inter-package dependencies setup correctly is proving to be
> a pain because I'm only building for Rawhide in mock.

Why is it a pain?

There's directories all over the place and since I'm building in mock and have to shell into the chroot to do any testing it's difficult to tell which packages depend on each other.

I'm actually thinking of dropping the python3-shiboken2 package and just include it in shiboken2. I don't think there's any other consumer of the python module other than the shiboken2 binary... Or is there? Does pyside2 or pyside2-tools need it? I have no idea. Is it only needed while building packages or needed at runtime? I have no idea...

I'm certainly not the best person to be packaging this but I seem to be the only one willing to try :)

 
> Options:
> Other distros, notably Arch just call the cmake projects directly instead
> of using  setuptools. There is a concern that the package may not be 100%
> complete since setuptools does some install massaging. But we're not doing
> a standalone install (embedded QT libraries) and I think I can pass the
> correct options to the CMake build to make sure things install correctly, I
> just having tried it yet.
>
> Option A:
> Continue fighting setuptools...
>
> Option B1:
> Build all the packages using CMake, which would require some sort of
> fakeroot install for shiboken2 and pyside2.

Why do you need fakeroot here? Nothing wrong with using it though.
There's also pseudo which might be better.

Well I didn't mean fakeroot literally but rather doing a temporary install somewhere in the build tree so the subsequent projects can find and use it.

 
> Option B2:
> Build all the packages using CMake but use the same source 3 times for 3
> separate packages. like the original pyside and build in the typical
> fashion:
>
> shiboken2 -> buildroot override -> Pyside2 -> buildroot override ->
> pyside2-tools -> All in one update.
>
> Thoughts?

I'd go with whatever requires less work to maintain and release. A or B1
seem like the best candidates. You wouldn't need to play the build and
add buildroot override game for every update.

Yeah I'm leaning towards B1 as well it just makes the spec file a bit messier :)

Thanks,
Richard