ipython anyone?

[Shahms King]

On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 13:58 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 10:33 -0800, Shahms King wrote:
> >On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 13:31 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> >> You also package quixote and friends, right?
> >> 
> >> Where are those packages? Would you consider maintaining them in extras?
> >> 
> >> -sv
> >
> >Yeah, I have packages for a number of python things that I'd be happy to
> >maintain for Extras.  I only have them compiled for FC2 at the moment
> >(Extras doesn't support apt, so I need to tweak my mach settings a bit),
> >but I can rebuild them for FC3 in a few minutes.

* combining responses into one email *

> two things I don't like in your spec file:
> 
> 1. %doc %{_datadir}/blahblah - typically you don't mark files as docs
> after they're in the doc dir - you mark them as docs and that causes
> them to appear there. You're short circuiting part of what doc does.

I wasn't sure, I figured it was best to mark them as documentation
anyway, but that's easily remedied.  Not including any documentation
means the package doesn't own the doc dir and it doesn't get removed
with the rest of the files, however. Would adding a '%dir %
{_datadir}/blablah' be approriate? That seems a little kludgy.

> 2. is %doc really a good idea for man pages?

It's technically correct, but again, I wasn't sure and I don't think the
guidelines specify one way or the other. Best to follow convention here,
I'll remove the %doc.

> -sv

> 1. download.fedora.us has an apt repo for extras. Warren has an apt
> fetish so it's kept over there.

All right, I'll take a look at using that for now.

> 2. I hope to have a nicely redistributable version of mach that uses yum
> instead of apt before too long.

Ahh, dreams do come true ;-)

> 3. I'll be willing to sponsor you if you'll maintain quixote and friends
> (durus, too, maybe?) in extras.

Sure, the quixote RPMS should be up shortly (just making sure they work
on my x86_64 machine at home as they aren't noarch).  I don't currently
package durus, but will look into it. If it's as easy to package as most
python libraries, I don't imagine it will take very long.

> /me uses the extortion method of sponsorship. :)

Whatever works ;-P

> -sv

> one more problem. The ipython tarball from your src.rpm and the one from
> the ipython website don't match.
> 
> idea why?

Yeah, the one in my SRPM was the one included in the "official" SRPM.
I'm surprised it doesn't match the "official" tar ball, but it should be
an easy fix.

> -sv

I'm just going through the various and sundry things I have packaged and
figuring out which ones aren't currently in Extras and cleaning them up
so I should have a number of python libraries ready to be QA'd in a
little while (probably after lunch).

The package naming guidelines page doesn't specify a name format for
python modules, but I'm assuming the convention is similar to that for
perl modules? i.e. python-${source_name}

I have historically used the convention python-${module_name} (where
module_name is the name used to import the module, rather than the
source name) but either seems reasonable to me.

-- 
Shahms E. King <shahms at shahms.com>
Multnomah ESD

Public Key:
http://shahms.mesd.k12.or.us/~sking/shahms.asc
Fingerprint:
1612 054B CE92 8770 F1EA  AB1B FEAB 3636 45B2 D75B
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20050301/1c11a7d3/attachment.sig>