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 #6 from Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org> 2009-10-29 17:29:21 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Any comments to rpmlint warnings like the following?
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.
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). My particular interest in Zope libraries is for SAGE
(
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/SciTech/SAGE).
Shouldn't some of the subpackages require a specific version of
the others?
There must be a reason the modules are distributed in one tar file?
Quite possibly. I must apologize for the sloppy work, I was rushed for time
yesterday.
Upstream project on pypi is ZODB3, and ZODB3 is also used in the tar
name. But
it provides the ZODB module, and it seems like upstream consistently refers to
it as ZODB (or ZODB 3.9). Shouldn't the package be called python-ZODB instead?
This sounds reasonable.
New Spec/SRPM:
http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/python-ZODB.spec
http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/python-ZODB-3.9.3-2.fc11.src...
--
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.