python packaging, egg-info file vs. directory
Toshio Kuratomi
a.badger at gmail.com
Tue Apr 15 16:09:55 UTC 2008
Thomas Moschny wrote:
> 2008/4/15, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com>:
>> Maybe the Guidelines need rewording. Can you point at something in the
>> Guidelines that could be improved to show that using setuptools to add eggs
>> in F7/F8 is optional? (All packages must handle the egg files in F9+ and
>> they must handle eggs created by packages which use setuptools normally.
>> The optional part is when adding eggs to a package which doesn't provide
>> them on its own.)
>
> Why do you consider it optional?
>
> The point was, that software like Trac depends on eggs to find its
> needed libraries. Creating them should therefore not be optional, even
> for older fedora releases.
>
Does trac use this library? If not, then it should definitely be
optional. eggs are only generated if 1) the upstream package uses
setuptools or 2) python-2.5 is being used. For trac to depend on
packages providing eggs that don't build with setuptools is limiting
trac to python-2.5.
Our addition of setuptools to provide eggs when upstream does not use
setuptools itself, is something of a kludge. We should not use it
unless the packager deems it to provide useful value for the particular
package they are working on.
Note: F-8's python-2.5 which disables egg generation in distutils is
also a kludge. And one that turned out to have poor side effects. So
the guidelines give us a method to workaround that deficiency. But when
there's no problem (because nothing is depending on the egg-info in
order to function) there's no reason to kludge around the kludge.
-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20080415/f9365bc2/attachment.sig>
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list