BuildRequires on python-abi

[Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams]

On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 13:01 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 04:57:50 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 04:51 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > > mach doesn't look at %build.
> > > 
> > > it's just doing buildreqs in advance for the build.
> > 
> > Yes, you're correct, we've established that. We're not even really
> > talking about mach here, we're just discussing why putting a
> > BuildRequires on python-abi = %{pyver} makes sense for this package,
> > independent of the build system.
> 
> It's insufficient and wrong. Looking at python-amara.spec, you do:
> 
> %{!?pyver: %define pyver %(%{__python} -c 'import sys;print(sys.version[0:3])')}
> %define mainpyver %(%{__python} -c 'import sys;print(sys.version[0:3])')
> 
> So, first of all, you depend on %__python, which would be equal to
> "BuildRequires: %__python".

Fair enough. I forgot that one.

> Only later you run  %{__python}%{pyver}  although you don't buildrequire
> that binary.

Yes, you're correct. BuildRequiring that binary would be the correct
approach, although the current BR pulls in that binary anyways, and the
new BR wouldn't mitigate the mach problem.

-- 
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazquez at ivazquez.net>
http://fedora.ivazquez.net/

gpg --keyserver hkp://subkeys.pgp.net --recv-key 38028b72
-------------- 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-maintainers/attachments/20050405/72052760/attachment.sig>