Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476600
--- Comment #7 from Mads Kiilerich <mads(a)kiilerich.com> 2009-10-29 20:49:31 EDT
---
> python-BTrees.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
> /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/BTrees/_IOBTree.c
> python-BTrees.i586: E: non-standard-executable-perm
> /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/BTrees/_OIBTree.so 0775
> python-persistent.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
> /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/persistent/cPersistence.h
> python-ZODB3.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
> /usr/include/python2.6/ZODB3/cPersistence.h
Yes, after I replied I remembered that I had forgotten to deal with these. My
next package will simply remove these files from the install, unless you have a
better suggestion.
I guess that depends on what upstreams purpose with the files is? Are they
installed on purpose or is it an oversight?
FWIW I can't imagine any reasons why .c files should be included in any
package. Theoretically it could perhaps make sense to expose the C code as a C
library and put the .h files in a -devel package, but I don't think that is
upstreams intention.
> Have you considered putting sub-modules somewhere else than in
the global
> namespace instead of creating sub-packages? If it was an executable it could be
> put in /usr/share (like for example rpmlint does), but in this case I guess it
> could be below /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/ZODB? What is upstreams
> opinion? (My past experience with Zope is that they have their own strong
> sub-community and don't try that hard to fit into system packaging, but instead
> recommends building a python from source and not sharing it with anything
> else.)
I'm not familiar with this; I think it would involve (at least) modifying all
the ZODB sources to look for these packages in a different place (or run any
program using ZODB with a PYTHONPATH including whatever subdirectory we
choose).
It _could_ be done in the ZODB module simply by inserting the right path in
sys.path before importing - or by manipulating sys.modules. But I don't know if
I would propose doing it in a Fedora patch.
I think we need input from upstream if they see it as one module or as 4
modules each on their own right. In either case it could be nice if they
distributed it in a way which matched their intention.
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.