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
> 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:
with no comments so
far. RHEL 7.2 just came out so it will certainly be no sooner than 7.3.
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com