python-2.6 on el5
 

Hi list,

I'm the maintainer of python-zmq and it would be nice, if I could use
it also on el5, but I need python26 for that.

Would it be ok, to use it and provide a python26-zmq or is an extra
review request needed for that?
Couldn't find any guideline, that forbits it, but there doesn't seem
to be any naming guideline for el, isn't it?

Greetings,
Tom
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

python-2.6 on el5
 

On 12/07/2011 04:09 PM, Thomas Spura wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> I'm the maintainer of python-zmq and it would be nice, if I could use
> it also on el5, but I need python26 for that.
>
> Would it be ok, to use it and provide a python26-zmq or is an extra
> review request needed for that?
> Couldn't find any guideline, that forbits it, but there doesn't seem
> to be any naming guideline for el, isn't it?
>
I am not sure that I have understood your question, so take the rest of
my answer with a bit of salt
python26 is in EPEL for quite some time. I see no reason to not make use
of it in your package.

manuel
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

python-2.6 on el5
 

On 12/07/2011 09:09 AM, Thomas Spura wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> I'm the maintainer of python-zmq and it would be nice, if I could use
> it also on el5, but I need python26 for that.
>
> Would it be ok, to use it and provide a python26-zmq or is an extra
> review request needed for that?
> Couldn't find any guideline, that forbits it, but there doesn't seem
> to be any naming guideline for el, isn't it?

Seems okay to me, as long as it has proper Requires on python26, and
works properly out of the box (e.g. it doesn't assume that python ==
python26 at runtime).

~tom

==
Fedora Project
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

python-2.6 on el5
 

2011/12/7 Thomas Spura <tomspur@fedoraproject.org>:
> Would it be ok, to use it and provide a python26-zmq or is an extra
> review request needed for that?
> Couldn't find any guideline, that forbits it, but there doesn't seem
> to be any naming guideline for el, isn't it?

If I see it right, in most cases the python26 packages for EL5 are not
subpackages, but packages of their own (and thus need a review) mainly
in order to avoid cluttering the specfile too much (imagine a combined
Fedora/EPEL specfile that also supports Py3...)

- Thomas
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

python-2.6 on el5
 

On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 03:09:32PM +0100, Thomas Spura wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> I'm the maintainer of python-zmq and it would be nice, if I could use
> it also on el5, but I need python26 for that.
>
> Would it be ok, to use it and provide a python26-zmq or is an extra
> review request needed for that?
> Couldn't find any guideline, that forbits it, but there doesn't seem
> to be any naming guideline for el, isn't it?
>
There aren't proper guidelines for this but there is this page:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Python26#Packaging_Guidelines_for_EPEL5

Here's the caveats: dmalcolm is in favor of combined packaging when
possible (ie, in the non-RHEL/EPEL split case) for packager convenience.
I'm in favor of split packages for the reasons given on that page.

It sounds like you're thinking python-zmq won't exist on EPEL6, only the
python26-zmq subpackage. With that in mind, only the bugzilla consideration
seems to apply.

-Toshio
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

python-2.6 on el5
 

2011/12/7 Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 03:09:32PM +0100, Thomas Spura wrote:
>> Hi list,
>>
>> I'm the maintainer of python-zmq and it would be nice, if I could use
>> it also on el5, but I need python26 for that.
>>
>> Would it be ok, to use it and provide a python26-zmq or is an extra
>> review request needed for that?
>> Couldn't find any guideline, that forbits it, but there doesn't seem
>> to be any naming guideline for el, isn't it?
>>
> There aren't proper guidelines for this but there is this page:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Python26#Packaging_Guidelines_for_EPEL5
>
> Here's the caveats: *dmalcolm is in favor of combined packaging when
> possible (ie, in the non-RHEL/EPEL split case) for packager convenience.
> I'm in favor of split packages for the reasons given on that page.
>
> It sounds like you're thinking python-zmq won't exist on EPEL6, only the
> python26-zmq subpackage. *With that in mind, only the bugzilla consideration
> seems to apply.

python-zmq already is in EPEL6. It's missing in EPEL5 because
python2.4 is too old and not supported:
http://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/2010-November/007597.html

So
* python-zmq will never exist in EPEL5 (unless someone will fork
upstream and make it work with python2.4) or
* python-zmq will contain and provide python26-zmq or
* there will only be python26-zmq
The draft guidelines for EPEL5 don't cover this case...

(I would prefer the providing solution 2 above, unless someone objects...)

Greetings,
Tom
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

python-2.6 on el5
 

On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 07:10:35PM +0100, Thomas Spura wrote:
> 2011/12/7 Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@gmail.com>:
> > On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 03:09:32PM +0100, Thomas Spura wrote:
> >> Hi list,
> >>
> >> I'm the maintainer of python-zmq and it would be nice, if I could use
> >> it also on el5, but I need python26 for that.
> >>
> >> Would it be ok, to use it and provide a python26-zmq or is an extra
> >> review request needed for that?
> >> Couldn't find any guideline, that forbits it, but there doesn't seem
> >> to be any naming guideline for el, isn't it?
> >>
> > There aren't proper guidelines for this but there is this page:
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Python26#Packaging_Guidelines_for_EPEL5
> >
> > Here's the caveats: *dmalcolm is in favor of combined packaging when
> > possible (ie, in the non-RHEL/EPEL split case) for packager convenience.
> > I'm in favor of split packages for the reasons given on that page.
> >
> > It sounds like you're thinking python-zmq won't exist on EPEL6, only the
> > python26-zmq subpackage. *With that in mind, only the bugzilla consideration
> > seems to apply.
>
> python-zmq already is in EPEL6. It's missing in EPEL5 because
> python2.4 is too old and not supported:
> http://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/2010-November/007597.html
>
Oops, yeah, I should have written EPEL5, not EPEL6 above.

> So
> * python-zmq will never exist in EPEL5 (unless someone will fork
> upstream and make it work with python2.4) or
> * python-zmq will contain and provide python26-zmq or
> * there will only be python26-zmq
> The draft guidelines for EPEL5 don't cover this case...
>
> (I would prefer the providing solution 2 above, unless someone objects...)
>
Well.. when you say python-zmq will contain and provide python26-zmq, do you
mean the python-zmq srpm will provide python26-zmq subpackage (and the main
package won't exist... something I'm not sure works)? Or do you mean there
will be a python-zmq package with a Provides: python26-zmq ?

I would be very much against having a python-zmq binary package in EPEL that
requires a python other than the main python package. It causes chaos on
a number of levels:

* User: "I wonder if I can use python-zmq for my new
feature for my RHEL5 application... it's in EPEL, I guess so."
* Packager: "python-foobar Requires: python-zmq. It's in EPEL5 so I'm going
to build python-foobar there. Hmm... why does this not work?"
* Sysadmin: "Developer needs python-zmq for his new application, okay yum
install.... Why is this pulling in python26 packages? Time to report
a bug."

-Toshio
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

python-2.6 on el5
 

2011/12/7 Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 07:10:35PM +0100, Thomas Spura wrote:
>> So
>> * python-zmq will never exist in EPEL5 (unless someone will fork
>> upstream and make it work with python2.4) or
>> * python-zmq will contain and provide python26-zmq or
>> * there will only be python26-zmq
>> The draft guidelines for EPEL5 don't cover this case...
>>
>> (I would prefer the providing solution 2 above, unless someone objects...)
>>
> Well.. when you say python-zmq will contain and provide python26-zmq, do you
> mean the python-zmq srpm will provide python26-zmq subpackage (and the main
> package won't exist... something I'm not sure works)? *Or do you mean there
> will be a python-zmq package with a Provides: python26-zmq ?

I would check, if it's on epel5 and change the default __python in the
spec file and before %description would be a %package -n python26-zmq,
so "the python-zmq srpm will provide python26-zmq subpackage (and the
main package won't exist".
This works in other packages, that the main package has no %files
section (and is therefore no binary package).

I agree to your concerns about the "Provides: python26-zmq"...

Greetings,
Tom
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

python-2.6 on el5
 

On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 12:35:21 -0800, TK (Toshio) wrote:

> Well.. when you say python-zmq will contain and provide python26-zmq, do you
> mean the python-zmq srpm will provide python26-zmq subpackage (and the main
> package won't exist... something I'm not sure works)?

That would work. Package definitions (and also subpackage definitions)
with a missing %files list in the spec file don't produce a binary build
of that package.
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

python-2.6 on el5
 

On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 09:54:40AM +0100, Thomas Spura wrote:
> 2011/12/7 Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@gmail.com>:
> > On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 07:10:35PM +0100, Thomas Spura wrote:
> >> So
> >> * python-zmq will never exist in EPEL5 (unless someone will fork
> >> upstream and make it work with python2.4) or
> >> * python-zmq will contain and provide python26-zmq or
> >> * there will only be python26-zmq
> >> The draft guidelines for EPEL5 don't cover this case...
> >>
> >> (I would prefer the providing solution 2 above, unless someone objects...)
> >>
> > Well.. when you say python-zmq will contain and provide python26-zmq, do you
> > mean the python-zmq srpm will provide python26-zmq subpackage (and the main
> > package won't exist... something I'm not sure works)? *Or do you mean there
> > will be a python-zmq package with a Provides: python26-zmq ?
>
> I would check, if it's on epel5 and change the default __python in the
> spec file and before %description would be a %package -n python26-zmq,
> so "the python-zmq srpm will provide python26-zmq subpackage (and the
> main package won't exist".
> This works in other packages, that the main package has no %files
> section (and is therefore no binary package).
>
> I agree to your concerns about the "Provides: python26-zmq"...
>
Sounds good to me -- Like I say, the only drawback that I see there is the
bugzilla reporting question which is the most minor of the three problems.

-Toshio
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging