[SSSD] [PATCH] Incorrect *.py[co] files placement

Jakub Hrozek jhrozek at redhat.com
Wed Apr 10 15:33:44 UTC 2013


On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 04:22:22PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:54:46AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > On Wed 27 Mar 2013 10:15:55 AM EDT, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > 
> > > I see, does this guideline apply only for packages that are usable
> > > on its own (only with python) or python packages in general? I
> > > still think that it would be a strange guideline to require python
> > > bindings for libfoo to be names python-libfoo and not
> > > libfoo-python.
> > > 
> > 
> > I took this to the Fedora packaging list and they came back with the
> > preference that we should call it python-sssdconfig. They stopped
> > short of making a firm decision on the libfoo-python question, but the
> > conversation is ongoing.
> 
> Then I think Lukas's approach is fine. rpmbuild works OK, the packages
> can be updated to and Requires look sane to me.
> 
> Packages that used to Require SSSD (such as freeipa-client) would get
> the new subpackage as a dependency automatically.
> 
> Ack.

Pushed to master.



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list