Great. I just pushed onto the various trackers tracking the issue -- among
which is the python tracker -- support for prerelease packages (...dev and
...dev-r77655 versioned packages) so they do not overwrite alphas, betas, or
final -1 and above releases.
El Miércoles 11 Marzo 2009, Tarek Ziadé escribió:
Hi,
Great work !
FYI it's on my pile in the bug tracker in Python. I'll try to work on
these before Pycon
Also, note that I am planning to release Distutils as a standalone
package before Pycon;
since the current trunk targets Python 2.3 to 3.1
Regards
Tarek
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Gerry Reno <greno(a)verizon.net> wrote:
> Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote:
>
> Hello, guys,
>
> I have fixed distutils (and setuptools remains working) with the attached
> patch. Now, RPMs will be built according to the Fedora Package Naming
> Guidelines:
>
>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Non-Numeric_Vers
>ion_in_Release
>
> which I understand to be the most useful reference in terms of naming
> pre-release packages. This should work correctly in at least:
>
> - Fedora
> - RHEL
> - SUSE
>
> I urge you patch your python 2.4s and 2.5s and 2.6s and push this update
> to distributions. I have done that myself at my own repository.
>
> Now we can enjoy one more reason to build RPMs (and eggs! ... according
> to my workbench at
http://yum.rudd-o.com/SCRIPTS/ -- feel free to pick
> its brains) DIRECTLY from the cheese shop, especially if you're using
> pip.
>
> Oh, I also have pip at my repo (cd ../RPMS/noarch in my workbench).
>
> See attached patch. I will log bugs where it corresponds too.
> --
>
> Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) <rudd-o(a)rudd-o.com>
>
Rudd-O.com -
http://rudd-o.com/
> GPG key ID 0xC8D28B92 at
http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/
>
> Now playing, courtesy of Amarok: Aqua - Cartoon heroes
> Windows 95 is not a virus. Viruses actually do something.
>
> Hi Manuel,
> You worked on my problem! Great.
> So today what we have been doing to deal with the pre-release and
> lexical ordering problem involving pre-releases is this:
> We impose a restriction on how the pre-release is identified. So for
> example if you intend to end up with a final version-release of 5.0.0-1
> and you want to first put out some betas or release candidates then we
> have to name them as, 5.0.0-0_beta1, or 5.0.0-0_rc1 and this is so that
> the lexical ordering for RPM will be correct. In other words you must
> put the pre-release designation into the 'release' part of
> VERSION-RELEASE. What we had seen developers doing previously was to
> name these as 5.0.0_beta1 or 5.0.0_rc1 (making the pre-release
> designation part of the 'version' string) which then did not work for the
> lexical ordering of the final release of 5.0.0-1 because 5.0.0 (version)
> was not lexically superior to 5.0.0_rc1. So we were able to solve this
> problem without any code changes to distutils. But this also presented a
> challenge for the other distribution targets such as 'sdist' because they
> were totally unaware of this 'version-release' combination and only knew
> about 'version'. So as a workaround we were doing this:
> # WORKAROUND
> # define both version AND release
> version='5.0.0'
> release='1'
> # combine them for all targets except 'bdist_rpm'
> if sys.argv[1] != 'bdist_rpm':
> version = version+'-'+release
> So this wasn't perfect but it actually worked quite well and we could get
> 'sdist' to work properly in conjunction with 'bdist_rpm'.
> So now with your patch all the targets should be able to set and use both
> 'version' and 'release' and we don't need our workaround and
that will be
> great.
>
> Regards,
> Gerry
A copy of the universe is not what is required of art; one of the damned
things is ample.
-- Rebecca West